5 LIBRARY OF CONGRESS. 

# 

t [SMITHSONIAN IBEFOSIT,] 

I - U^ -^ 

I UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 'f 



^aj^tist Spttm OE^amiiteK 



Se\&^, 3oS>efh Hu-cx-ustaS 




THE 



BAPTIST SYSTEM EXAMINED, 

THE CHURCH VINDICATED, 

AND 

SECTARIANISM REBUKEDl 

A REVIEW OF 

^'Fuller on Baptism and the Terms of Communion.'^ 



BY 

FIDELIS SCRUTATOR. p5ew<^ 



f- 



" Holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he 
may be able, by sound doctrlue, both to exhort and convince gain- 
sayers. For there be many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers, 
whose mouths must be stopped." — Paul to Titus. 



> <♦» i 



BALTIMORE: 'C^^ 

PUBLISHED AND SOLD BY 
T. NEWTON KURTZ, 

NO. 151 WEST PRATT STREET. 

1854:, 






Entered, according to Act of Congress, in the year One 
Thousand Eight Hundred and Fifty-four, by T. Newtok 
Kurtz, in the Clerk's Office of the District Court of the United 
States for the District of Maryland. 






^ 






A WOED PEOEMIAL. 



These sheets contain, with a few emendations of 
hasty composition, and a few additions which 
seemed to be desirable, what has heretofore been 
published in the columns of the Lutheran Observer. 
When this Review was commenced, it was by no 
means expected to make a volume, but like the 
" Fern Leaves from Fanny's Portfolio," if grew;, and 
is now given in this form in answer to the expressed 
wishes of those who ought to understand its merits. 

No apology is offered for undertaking to discuss 
the subjects here treated. Nothing is asked for 
the writer but straightforward justice ; and nothing 
is asked for his Review but a candid examination. 
As to any thing beyond this there are no mis- 
givings, and therefore no supplications to be ad- 
dressed to the reader. 

It need not be said to what extent other men's 
labors have been used in this production, especially 
the works of Beecher, Bickersteth, Taylor, Ed- 
wards, and Miller on the same subjects. Envious 
critics, who would condemn an essay because every 
line, paragraph, or thought in it is not there pre- 
sented for the first time, will find room to despise 
this book ; whilst those who are willing to see and 



6 

acknowledge original labor will not be quite dis- 
appointed in seeking for it in these pages. But the 
reader may ascribe to us or to others just so much 
of this Review as he sees fit, and we shall be con- 
tent. It has not been written for the empty com- 
pliments of finical literati, but for the exhibition 
of God's truth against insolent error, and the vin- 
dication of his Church. The only issue upon which 
it is put up for trial is, Does it speak the truth ? Is 
its logic sound ? Is it a satisfactory answer to the 
doctrines which it calls in question ? If it will not 
stand upon these points, the writer is willing that 
it should fall, and the sooner the better. But so 
long as its main reasonings and conclusions are not 
refuted and set aside, ail secondary and collateral 
issues must remain as insignificant as the dust upon 
the balance, and the man who makes them shall 
merit only contempt for his pains. ^ 

Baltimore, September, 1854. 



CONTENTS. 



OHAPTEE. PAGE. 

I. Subject of the Review described, and 

the Baptist system stated .... 9 

II. General considerations against it . . 20 

III. Baptizo not a stronger word than Bapto 30 

IV. Explanations, a digression . ... 44 
V. Immersion not the only meaning of 

Baptizo 50 

VI. Passages relied on by Baptists to prove 
that Baptizo means total immersion 

and nothing else 69 

VII. Baptizo as used in the Septuagint . . 85 

VIII. Argument from Bapto 104 

IX. An inquiry into the nature of the divers 

baptisms under the Mosaic law . . 124 
X. Baptizo in the New Testament . . . 145 
XI. Proofs that Baptizo, as a religious word, 
signifies a religious purij'yir.g without 

regard to mode . 164 

I XII. Affusion, an authorized mode of admin- 
istering Christian Baptism . . . 190 
XIII. The places and circumstances of the 
baptisms recorded in the Scriptures 
opposed to the imm.ersion theory . 209 



VIII CONTENTS. 

CHAP. PAGE. 

XIV. The prepositions used in connection 

with Baptizo, and the allusions to 

Baptism in the New Testament, no 

proofs in favor of immersion . . 238 

XV. The practice of the Greek and Patristic 

Church respecting Baptism . . . 255 

XVI. Sum of the argument ; agreement of 
authorities; and general tendencies 
of Baptist system 271 

XVII. Infant BajUism not a sin, but enjoined 

in the commission ; infant disciple- 
ship 290 

XVIII. Infants included in '' all nations ;" the 

Baptism of families by the Apostles, 308 

XIX. Testimony of the Fathers, and outlines 

of other arguments 333 

XX. Terms of Communion, as held by Bap- 

tistSj set forth in their true light . 356 

[The reader will observe that the last three chapters in 
the hook are numbered wrong.] 



REVIEW OF FULLER 

ON 

BAPTISM AND THE TEEMS OF COMMUNION.* 

CHAPTER I. 

Richard Fuller--^liis assault upon the great 
body of the church — his system* 

Richard Fuller, we believe, is a gentle* 
man of fortune, an ex-lawyer, a doctor of 
divinity, a minister in a congregation of 
Baptists in the city of Baltimore, and a man 
of distinction among the people who delight to 
honor him as their champion. He professes 
to write in a catholic and fraternal spirit ; 
and bating a few of his fundamental posi- 

' * " Baptism, and the Terms of Communion : An Argument, 
by Eichard Fuller. Second edition, Charleston: Southern 
Baptist Publication Society." pp. 251» 

2 



10 

tions, we are glad to see him thus improving 
upon the temper of the Carsons, Broadduses 
and others, whose oft exploded ratiocinations 
on this controversy he has so diligently col- 
lected and reproduced. He avows himself 
^^a Baptist on principle, and not in sectarian'- 
ism nor bigotry ;^^ that is, he claims to be an 
exception to Baptists generally, who, if we 
are to take the implications of his own avow- 
al, are both sectarian and bigoted. How far 
he is entitled to this special exemption, may 
be fairly ascertained from the zeal with 
which he insists, that all who are not immer- 
sed are outside of the church which Christ 
instituted, unworthy of being admitted to the 
Lord's Supper, neglecting a positive com- 
mand of the Son of God, and in alarming 
danger of eternal death. To which of the 
twelve tribes of Baptists in our country Mn 
Fuller belongs, he does not tell us ; but rath- 
er insinuates, that he does not exactly coin- 
cide with either class of this multifarious 
progeny. This is, at least, one way of excu- 
sing himself from responsibility for some of 
the more disagreeable features of the system 



11 

which he advocates ; and whatever excep- 
tions we may take to his doctrines or his 
logic, we readily accord to him the tact and 
shrewdness of an accomplished dialectician. 
His "argument," to those unacquainted with 
the subject, bears an air of plausibility about 
it very well calculated to make an impres- 
sion. His dexterous evasions of the real 
matters in dispute, his subtle management 
to pass off for granted the very thins^s to be 
proven, his array of learned authorities upon 
points which nobody denies, and the whining 
affectation in which he commends the Bap- 
tists, or rather himself, to popular sympathy, 
to say nothing of his misrepresentations and 
unreliable quotations, give to his book a cer- 
tain factitious force, to which his cause is by 
no means entitled, and which, by Divine 
help, we propose to reduce to its real noth- 
ingness. 

We have for Dr. Fuller, personally, none 
but the kindest feelings. We trust he is con- 
scientious and sincere. His carrying of the 
mere lawyer into theology, and his resort to 
very questionable means to sway the unsus- 



12 

pecting and uninformed, are doubtless to be 
mainly attributed to the force of habit and 
education, and to the mistakes, to say noth- 
ing worse, of those whom he has chosen as 
his guides. Neither do we love controversy. 
It pains us as much to be driven into these 
contentions about sacred things, as it pains 
Dr. Fuller and his friends to exclude us from 
^ the table of the Lord. To him, however, 
belongs the distinction of being the aggressor 
— the prosecutor in this cause. Having ven- 
tured solemnly and emphatically to charge 
one hundred and ninety out of every two 
hundred of the great household of Christ with 
the downright violation of one of the plainest 
and most positive commands of the Saviour 
— with entire alienation from the visible 
church — and with the occupancy of a posi- 
tion of risk and jeopardy enough to alarm 
any serious mind, — there is no alternative 
left us, but to surrender to him the liberty 
which we have in Christ Jesus, or to take up 
one of the swords which he has crossed be- 
fore us. We have no fault to find with him 
or his friends for choosing to perform their 



13 

baptisms by immersion. This is a liberty 
of which we have no wish to deprive him. 
But to the arrogant assumptions with which 
he seeks to unchurch us, and to put us in 
danger of losing heaven, we will not give 
place by subjection, no not for an hour, that 
the truth of the gospel may not be wrested 
from us. If he is disposed to complain that 
his teachings should be controverted, let him 
not forget the daring assault that he has 
made upon the faith and hope of millions of 
God's children ; and if he should feel him- 
self incommoded by the resistance that he 
shall meet, let him remember that he made 
the first breach of the peace. 

To those familiar with the Baptist contro- 
versy, it is hardly necessary to slate the na- 
ture of the system which Dr. Fuller's '^ar- 
gument" is designed to sustain. It is that 
maintained by Christ-ians,Campbelliles,Tun- 
kers, Millerites, and all other Baptists. We 
do not attribute to Dr. Fuller all the vaga- 
ries and heresies of the parties named ; but 
simply that the system he supports is that 
supported in common by all Baptists. But 
2* 



14 

as he disclaims being a Baptist in the depart- 
nients of " sectarianism and bigotry," and is 
very solicitous that his reviewers should 
quote him fairly, it may be as well once for 
all to show what his position is. 

1. Dr. Fuller maintains, that the command 
of Christ to baptize is a command to immerse. 
** The question before us then is this, What 
does bapiizo mean ? I answer, it means ivi- 
merse; this I affirm positively." '' The as- 
sertion that baptizo has different meanings " 
he pronounces *' puerility " and " folly ;" p. 
14, 15. "Baptizo always denotes a total 
immersion;" p. 19. "I have ascertained 
the meaning of baptizo. It signifies to im- 
merse, and has no other meaning;^^ pi 25. " In 
commanding his disciples to be baptized, Je- 
sus knew what act he enjoined, and he could 
have been at no loss for a word clearly to 
express his meaning. If Jesus meant im- 
merse, and nothing else, the word was baptizo. 
This is the word he has used, and which the 
Holy Spirit always employs when the rite of 
baptism is mentioned ;'' p. 31. "The word 
baptizo has but one meaning, and always 



15 

signifies immerse f^ p. 45. " I propose the fol- 
lowing questions to my reader's conscience : 
Is it possible to doubt what Christ intends 
when he uses the word haptizo ? Is sprink- 
ling, or pouring, baptism? Is it not a fear- 
ful thing to alter an ordinance instituted by 
the Lord Jesus?" p. 49. *'As to baptism, 
iJie very thing, the only act he commands, is 
immersion;^' p. 50. *' Jesus commands his 
disciples to be immersed ;" p. 70. 

2. Dr. Fuller maintains, that all such as 
have not been immersed are unbaptized, and 
delinquent with respect to a positive com- 
mand of Christ. 

He evinces a singular cautiousness and 
reserve as to the plain and categorical 
avowal of this inevitable consequence of 
his first position. But the evidence that 
this is his doctrine is so clear, as well upon 
the face as in the very marrow of his ar- 
gument, that he will not dare to disclaim 
it. " No one can partake of the Supper," 
says he, " who is not a member in a visi- 
ble church." *' Baptism is a pre-requisite 
to admission into a visible church properly 



16 

organized ;" p. 229. And when he comes 
to consider why all but Baptists are exclud- 
ed from his communions in the Supper, the 
grand difficulty which he assigns is, '* we 
cannot admit to the Supper tho^e whom we 
regard as unhaptized, however much, &c. . . 
To do this" (that is, to permit common Chris- 
tians to unite in the supper with Baptists,) 
" would be to declare such jpersons qualified 
'for membership in our churches; which would 
he to admit memhers without baptism; which 
would be to abolish baptism altogether !" p. 
237. 

3. Dr. Fuller maintains that to refuse to 
be immersed is a disobedience to a positive 
command, involving a degree of criminality 
making the prospect of final salvation to 
those who are not immersed exceedingly 
problematical. 

This is another position in which he is 
very unsteady. Now he half affirms it, 
and then half denies it. Here he recog- 
nizes us as his dear brethren in Christ, and 
there he points with horror to our dreadful 
danger by reason of our disobedience ; at 



17 

the same time repeating in a solemn under- 
tone those fearful words, " The Lord Jesus 
shall be revealed from heaven with his 
mighty angels in flaming fire, taking ven- 
geance upon them that know not God and 
that ohey not the gospel ;" p. 105. Why all 
this trepidation and hesitation to "face the 
music?" Why not out boldly and fairly 
with the whole thing ? We are either Chris- 
tians entitled to heaven, or we are not. If 
we are Christians, then all this ado about 
baptizo and immersion is sheer nonsense; 
and the unimmersed, if obedient in other re- 
spects, are as good and as safe as the im- 
mersed, whether they have gone un.der once 
or thrice, backwards or forwards. If Dr. 
Fuller is willing to admit this, he surren- 
ders his cause and the controversy is at an 
end ; if he does not admit it, then he main- 
tains that the salvation of the unimmersed is 
exceedingly problematical and can have no 
good hope of meeting any of them in heaven. 
Is this his doctrine ? Hear him : " My dear 
reader, . . the matter before you is not 
an abstraction ; it is a plain duty, which meets 



18 

you at the very thresliold of the Christian 
course, and which you may not evade without 
insult to the Saviour and peril to your 
soul;" p. 105. <*Do not say we lay too 
much stress on baptism. . Upon this point 
I adjure you not to upbraid us, but to ohey 
Christ;^^ p. 101. "I regard baptism just as 
I do any other command ; and / dare not 
trench upon God's prerogative and decide 
what is to he the consequence in eternity of 
disobedience to any command;^' p. 104. ^^ Is 
it not a fearful thing to alter an ordinance 
instituted by the Lord Jesus?'' p. 49. 

We do not suppose that Dr. Fuller will 
pronounce these quotations unfair. If these 
points do not set forth the'^ssence of his sys- 
tem, he has none, and his *^ argument" is a 
mere beating of the air. We do not there- 
fore misrepresent him when we say, that 
according to his teaching, Christ has com- 
manded men to be immersed, and all those 
who are not immersed are outside of the 
pale of the visible church, and in great dan- 
ger of losing their souls; that not to be im- 
mersed is disobedience to Christ, involving 



19 

unfitness for participation in the Holy Sup* 
per, and laying the foundation of a reasonable 
apprehension of excluvsion from heaven. 

All this we most emphatically deny. Here 
then we join issues, and lei the world de*- 
cide between us. 



20 



CHAPTER II. 

Prima facia considerations against Dr. FuU 
ler'^s System— Gospel Liberty — The testis 
mony of the great body of the church for 
many ages---^ The true signification of Bap- 
tism. 

Before proceeding to analyze Dr. Fuller's 
argument, we desire to advert to a few a pri- 
ori and prima facia considerations, which 
weigh so strongly against his arrogant as- 
sumptions as to require the most solid and 
inflexible proof to set them aside. 

1. The whole gospel system is a system 
of liberty. It was so predicted: Is. 42 : 1; 6L 
1. It was so proclaimed by its first preach- 
ers: Rom* 7 : 6 ; 8 : 2 ; Gal. 5:1. It is spe- 
cially presented as a s}'stem of freedom from 
the bondage of burdensome ceremonies: Gal 
4: 3-7. Paul says expressly, ^' If ye be dead 
with Christ from the rudiments of the world, 
why, as though living in the world, are ye 
subject to ordinances ?" Col. 2 : 20. " Why 
is my liberty judged of another man's con- 



21 

science ?'' 1 Cor. 10 : 29. '' Stand fast there* 
fore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath 
made us free, and be not entangled again 
with the yoke of bondage." Gal. 5:1. And 
how dissonant with this "perfect law of lib- 
erty" — how subversive of the free spirit of 
the gospel — how like the old bondage to 
grievous ceremonies— and how unlikely to be 
a part of the glorious economy of grace—- to 
have all its sublime blessings bound up in, 
and made dependent on, the miserable little 
external accident of being far enough in the 
waters of baptism to have them close for an 
instant over our heads ! How utterly foreign 
to the whole strain and spirit of " the better 
covenant," that even the least of its precious 
promises should be thus linked with such a 
mere puncto of outward ceremony ! Surely 
the thing is so grossly incongruous with all 
that relates to the nature of a system pre- 
eminently spiritual and gracious, that it can- 
not be entertained for a moment, except upon 
the clearest and most unexceptionable proofs. 
2. The vast body of christian people for 
many ages, including multitudes whose 
3 



22 

names the church wears upon her heart,-<- 
men as conscientious, holy, studious, learn-* 
ed, and gifted by the Spirit as any that ever 
sunk beneath the waters-^men who fought 
the battles of the Lord, and won to them- 
selves renown as wide as Christendom and 
lasting as the world, — have maintained, that 
there is no law requiring Christians to be 
immersed, and were themselves never im* 
mersed. Are we to believe that they were 
all unbaptized — ^all unqualified to commune 
in the holy Supper — all unfit for membership 
in our churches— all fundamentally wrong 
in their views, and that it is doubtful whether 
any of them have reached heaven? How 
can we thus asperse their fame, and insult 
their memories and their graves? How dare 
we thus sunder the ( ords of sympathy that 
bind us to our fathers, and extinguish the 
glowing hope of meeting them in glory. 
Well does Dr. Fuller speak of this as ^* a 
matter which is pawfui;^^ and the very pain- 
fulness of it is a presumption against the 
truth of his system- — a presumption which is 
not to be set aside except by the resistless 



23 

power of demonstration itself. To talk of 
*Modged and incurable prejudices," does not 
mend the matter, but only adds a deeper 
tinge of sadness to our contemplations of the 
honored dead. If our illustrious ancestors 
were in error — if tbe world's great lights 
were so far from the truth as the Baptist 
theory teaches — let us not be taunted by the 
mockery of consolation that theirs was a 
willful blindness. We are sorry to find Dr. 
Fuller in such " hot haste" to pass from this 
point the very moment he touches it. It is 
a great and interesting inquiry — one which, 
next to that of our own personal salvation, is 
the most important and absorbing involved 
in this debate. To declare it •' impertinent" 
is not to prove it so ; and if Dr. Fuller is an 
exception among Baptists, he hereby shows 
that he is not so far an exception among men 
as to grasp a hot iron with a steady firmness. 
The very thought seems to appal him, and 
he hastes to bury it out of his own and his 
reader's sight. We here thrust it upon him 
again, not as an absolute proof of the error 
of his system, but as presumptive evidence 



24 

against him, which must be taken as deci- 
sive, unless confronted by the most unmis- 
takable testimony. 

3. Another very strong probability against 
Dr. Fuller's system, arises from the scope 
and spiritual significance of baptism itself. 
It is the sacrament of regeneration and re- 
mission of sins. The command of Peter on 
the day of Pentecost was, " Be baptized, ev^ 
ery one of you, for the remission of sins;*' 
Acts 2 : 38. Ananias said to Paul, ^^ Arise, 
and be baptized, and wash away thy sins ;" 
Acts 22: 16. Jesus says, *^ Except a man 
be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot 
enter into the kingdom of God ;" John 3:8; 
a passage concerning which Wall justly 
says, " There is not any one Christian wri- 
ter, of any antiquity, in any language, but 
who understands it of baptism ; and if it be 
not so understood, it is difficult to give an 
account how a person is born of water any 
more than born of wood.'^ Paul speaks of 
Christians as "saved by the washing of re- 
generation and renewing of the Holy Ghost,'^ 
as having "put off the body of the sins of the 



25 

flesh ly the circumcision of Christ;^^ Tit. 3 : 
5, 6 ; Col. 2:11, 13. Peter says, " Bap- 
tism doth also now save us;'*' a sacrament 
which he describes to be, '^ not the putting 
away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer 
of a good conscience toward God ;" 1 Peter 
8: 21. Christ gave himself for the church, 
*^that he might sanctify and cleanse it v/ith 
the washing of watei by the Word ;" Eph, 
5: 25, 26. Irenseus styles baptism "our re- 
generation unto God ;" Lib. 1, cap. 18. Ter- 
tuUian calls it ''the happy sacrament of wa- 
ter, whereby we are washed from the sins 
of our former blindness and recovered to 
eternal life;" Mason's Selections, p. 111. 
Origen says, "The baptism of the church is 
criven for the remission of sins." Auj^ustine 
exclaims, *' Behold ! persons are baptized, 
then all their sins are forgiven ;" Sermon on 
Rom. 8 : 30. Upon the question, *^ What 
are the benefits of baptism ?" Luther an- 
swers, " It works the forgiveness of sins ;" 
Small Cat., part 4. Calvin says, " Remis- 
sion of sins is so dependent on baptism that 
it cannot by any means be separated from 
3* 



26 

it;" Inst. torn. 4, cap. 15, sec. 4. The Con- 
fession of Helvetia says, ^' To be baptized in 
the name of Christ is to be enrolled, entered - 
and received into covenant and family, and 
so into the inheritance of the sons of God. . 
Baptism, according to the institution of the 
Lord, is the fount of regeneration." The 
Bohemian Confession calls it " the sacra- 
ment of the new birth ; that is, of regenera- 
tion or washing with water in the Word of 
life." The Confession of France says that 
in it " we are ingrafted into Christ's body ; 
that, being washed in his blood, we may also 
be renewed to holiness of life." Knapp, 
whom Dr. Fuller quotes with so much ap- 
probation, says, ''Baptism represents purifi- 
cation from sins, and is designed to promote 
this end in the one who is baptized," Theol., 
vol. 2, p. 510. Flaccius says, '' Baptism, 
and to be baptized, means an internal wash- 
ing, remission of sins and an evercontinuing 
renewal ;" Clavis Scrip. Sac, Art. Bapt., p. 
66. 

But to multiply authorities upon this 
point is needless. All sound theologians 



27 

admit and contend that baptism, in its true 
acceptation, is not a mere external ordi- 
nance, but a sacrament of deep spiritual 
import, in which the soul is absolved from 
guilt and savingly incorporated with Je- 
sus Christ. 

Let us not be misunderstood. We do 
not maintain the doctrine ordinarily called 
" Baptismal Regeneration f^ i. e., we do 
not believe that the mere application of 
water to a human subject, in any mode 
or quantity, can wash away sins or work 
any subjective change in the heart. What 
we affirm, and what we understand to be 
affirmed in these quotations, is, that bap- 
tism is a thing for the soul as well as for the 
body ; that it fails to become true baptism 
unless attended or followed with spiritual 
experience, conformity to the baptismal vow, 
and that purity of heart which the water 
typifies; that this high spiritual conception 
of this sacrament is the only true conception 
of it, and that in this respect it carries with 
it the virtue and efficacy which is here as- 
cribed to it. It is a thins: which looks 



23 

wholly to the inner man, and to the rela- 
tions and experiences of the spirit. It is 
'•not the putting away of the fi!th of the 
flesh, but the answer of a good conscience 
toward God/" 

Whaty we would then ask, has quantity of 
water to do with these internal and spiritual 
things, with giving a man a good conscience 
or inspiring him with a new life ? The 
whole office of the mere wafer of baptism is 
to represent and typify an inward purifica- 
tion, a renovation of the soul, without which 
baptism fails to be baptism, and becomes a 
mere profitless, dead work. And surely no 
man in his senses will pretend to deny that 
a few handfuls of water from the crystal 
spring can as well symbolize purity as tons 
of the contents of the filthy pools or stagnant 
cisterns to which Baptists ordinarily invite 
their converts. To those who can dispute 
so plain a proposition we have no reply to 
make. And the very fact that baptism looks 
to a purification of the spirit and the wash- 
ing away of sins, renders it almost impossi- 
ble to believe for a moment that the validity 



29 

and force of so spiritual a sacrament should 
be nfiade to depend upon tlie depth of the wa- 
ter used in its outward administration. 

These considerations, then, weigh so much 
against Dr. Fuller^s system, that they must 
be conclusive of the case, unless the highest 
and most inflexible proofs can be produced 
to the contrary. 

What sort of proofs Dr. Fuller offers 
will be our next object of inquiry.. 



30 



CHAPTER III. 

Baptists rest every thing upon the interpreta- 
tion of a single word — The force of zo in 
Greek — Pretended testimony of Dr. Por- 
son. 

In proceeding to examine the nature of 
the proofs upon which Dr. Fuller rests the 
claims of his proscriptive system, we are at 
once struck with the extraordinary fact, that 
his whole argument comprises nothing but a 
mere philological disquisition upon the mean- 
ing of one little Greek word. The entire 
eleven chapters devoted to this part of the 
subject are occupied with the one single 
point, what does haptizo mean ? " The mat- 
ter before us," says he, " is a calm philologi- 
cal inquiry as to the meaning of a Greek 
word." "The simple inquiry is, as to the 
meaning of the Greek word haptizo;^^ p. 12. 
His interpretation of this simple word is the 
alpha and omega — the beginning, middle 
and end — the body, soul and spirit of all he 
has to present to prove that ninety-five hun- 



31 

dredths of Christ's people are in a state of 
downright disobedience to their Lord, unfit 
for membership in "our churches," or to 
approach the Lord's Supper, and without 
any sure or reliable hope of final salvation. 
This certainly is very remarkable, that the 
great law of the gospel, and a point involv- 
ing the eternal well-being and affecting the 
hopes of millions of Christian people, should 
be made to turn upon one little word. Is it 
not an astounding doctrine, that in a divine 
revelation, forming a library in itself, a mer- 
ciful and condescending God should have 
suspended the issues of his sublime scheme 
of grace upon the doubtful import of one 
single Greek word ! According to the an- 
cient prophets the way of salvation is an 
open " highway." in which " wayfaring men, 
though fools, shall not err;" Is, 35: 8— so 
** plain that he may run that readeth it ;" 
Hab. 2 : 2— and laid down in divers forms, 
" precept upon precept, precept upon precept, 
line upon line, line upon line, here a little 
and there a little;" Isaiah 28: 10. But it 
seems, aftfer all, that we must take Dr. Ful- 



32 

ler's say so, or go to the study of Greeks 
before we can learn it ; that the whole ques- 
tion lies in the interpretation of a Greek 
word ; and that we must go back to the old 
heathen writers to ascertain whether we are 
Christians, and consult the pages of Orpheus, 
Heraclides Ponticus, Polybius, the Greek 
scholiasts on Euripides and Aratus, Alcibi- 
ades, Anacreon, ^sop and Diodorus Siculus, 
to find out whether or not we have a good 
hope for heaven ! Let the reader but look 
at it, and consider the real nature of the 
question and the real character of the testi- 
mony adduced to decide it, and he will find 
that Dr. Fuller's argument bears an absurd- 
ity upon its face of which we would suppose 
no sane man with a fair mind could possibly 
be guilty. But as all this contains nothing 
very favorable to the Baptist theory, it is of 
course ^^ impertinent,^' diud we leave it to take 
a glance at those philological processes by 
which Dr. Fuller has ^' ascertained " that 
'^hapiizo signifies to immerse, and has no. 
other meaning." 

All agree that iapiizo is a derivation of 



83 

la'pto; and until Dr. Fuller told us differ- 
ently, we had always supposed that the true 
method of reaching the meaning of a sec 
ondary word, was to find out the signification 
of its root. But it appears now, that in "a 
calm philological inquiry as to the meaning 
of a Greek word," upon which Dr. Fuller 
suspends such vast interests, ''we have noth- 
ing to do with hapto;'^ p. 12. Well, to Rich- 
ard Fuller belongs the honor of having dis- 
covered this new canon of interpretation. 
How far it serves to show his claim to relia- 
bility as an expounder of the meaning of 
baptizo, we leave the reader to determine. 
We pass it without additional comment, in- 
asmuch as he himself departs from his own 
canon in the very next paragraph, and at- 
tempts to make capital for his cause by as- 
suring us, that "in the Greek language the 
addition of zo rather enforces than diminish- 
es the primitive verh;^^ thus, '^sophos, wise ; 
sopMzo, to make wise ; la'pto, to dip ; lap^ 
tizo, to make one dip, that is, to immerse." 
Hellenic sages, hear; sophos a veri / and 
sophizo a word enforcing the primitive verb 
4 



34 

ly the addition of zo ! What an interpreter, 
to show the meaning of a Greek word which, 
if we are to believe Dr. Fuller, concerns the 
Christian character and eternal hopes of al- 
most all Christendom itself! Of his other 
examples to prove his theory concerning the 
force of zo^ we shall speak presently. For 
the reader unacquainted with Greek, it may 
be proper to state that sophos is an adjective, 
and that hapto and baptizo are both verbs; 
so that to have a complete analogy of the re- 
lation between bapto and baptizo, verbs alone 
can be taken into account. But whether we 
take radical verbs and their derivatives, or 
take nouns, adjectives, or any other parts of 
speech, and the verbs ending in zo derived 
from them, we shall find no earthly founda- 
tion for the force which Dr. Fuller is pleased 
to assign to the affix of zo; concerning which 
he modestly tells us that great " authors only 
betray their innocence of the Greek lan- 
guage." 

So far as our humble attainments in Greek 
extend, and according to all the lexicograph- 
ers we have been able to consult, the addi- 



3S 

tion of ^0 is a mere variation of the original 
word without a variation of the meaning,-— 
as pnigo, pn?'gizOy to strangle or choke ; eu^ 
oreo, euortazOy to be careless or unconcerned ; 
biaOy hiazOy to force or compel,^ — or else it sig- 
nifies a process or condition, of approximation 
to the action or thing signified in the original 
word. Take the following illustrations from 
nouns, adjectives and verbs. First, nouns 
^^phos, light ; phofizo, to enlighten, or put in 
process of becoming light ; eUnouchos, a eu- 
nuch ; eunouchho, to make a eunuch, or to 
put in process of becoming a eunuch ; guna, 
genitive gunaikos, a woman ; gunaiki.zo, to 
i^ender womanish, or put in process of becom*. 
ing like a woman ; doxa, glory ; doxazo, to 
glorify, or put in process of becoming glori- 
ous 5 paraskeua, a state of preparation ^ par- 
askeuazo, to make preparation, or put in pro- 
cess of becoming prepared. Second, adjec- 
tives — katharosj clean ; katharizo, to cleanse, 
or put in process of becoming clean ; phoin- 
ios, red as blood ; phoinizo, to redden, or put 
in process of becoming red. Third, verbs — 
and here the instances are perfectly analo- 



36 

gous to la'pto, hapiizo; plouteo, to be rich ; 
ploutizoj to enrich, or put in process of be- 
coming rich ; melaneo, to be black ; melan^ 
izo, to be blackish, or in a condition verging 
towards black ; phluo^ to overflow as boiling 
water escaping from the kettle ; phluzo, to 
bubble up so as to tend towards an overflow. 
From these examples it would then seem, 
that the addition of zo in Greek corresponds 
exactly to the English terminations ize and 
isJi, which most likely have taken their ori- 
gin from it ; e. g., scandal, scandalize ; blue, 
hluish ; italic, italicise ; wolf, wolfish, &c. 
Hence, if iapto means to dye, color or tinge, 
(as Dr. Fuller agrees,) the meaning of lap^ 
iizo would be about the same, or to put in 
process of becoming dyed, colored or tinged ; 
if it means to wasJi, as Pickering, Grove, 
Dunbar, Donegan, Schrevelius, and Park- 
hurst say it does mean, the signification of 
haptizo would be, to put in process or condi- 
tion of being washed ; and if it means to dip 
or submerge, then haptizo would mean to put 
in process or condition verging towards a dip- 
ping or submersion — the signification of the 



37 

word with zo almost universally falling shorv 
of the meaning of the original word. 

But, says Dr. Fuller, *' OikeOy to dwell ; 
oikizo, to make one dwell ; sopkos, wise ; so- 
phizO) to make wise ; sophroneo, to be of a 
sound mind ; sophronizo^ to make one of a 
sound mind. And just so, lapto, to dip ; lap- 
tizOf to make one dip, that is to immerse!'" 
The reader will doubtless feel a reasonable 
curiosity to know how the phrase *'/o make one 
dip^^ can be made synonymous with the word 
^^immerse;^^ but his ingenuity will be still 
further taxed to find out where Dr. Fuller 
obtained some of the definitions he has given 
to the Greek words just named. But as Dr. 
Fuller seems to have access to books which 
no other man ever saw, (such, for instance, 
as the Fifth Book of Calmii's Institutes^ quo- 
ted on page 21,) it u not to be thought strange 
that he should have information on these sub- 
jects from sources not within the reach of 
common Christians. One thing is certain, 
that the definitions which those honored men, 
who have ever stood as unimpeached inter- 
preters of the Greek language, have assign- 
4* 



38 

ed to the words upon which Dr. Fuller has 
rested his theory, do not altogether accord 
with those which he has given. Of course, 
in Dr. Fuller's estimation, those venerable 
lexicographers are to be blamed, just as the 
translators of our English Bible. But, in a 
matter involving the Christian character and 
final salvation of millions of professing Chris- 
tians, most persons would doubtless prefer to 
take our ordinary lexicographers, and our 
good old English Bible, than to rely upon 
him, with all his unknown books. Let the 
reader open any standard lexicon, and he 
will find that oikeo means to inhabit, and oi- 
kizo to render habitable, or to put in process 
of becoming inhabited. Sophos means skill- 
ful, and sophizo to render skillful, or to put 
in process of becoming skillful. Soplironeo 
means to be of a sound mind, prudent or dis- 
creet, and sophronizo to render prudent or 
discreet, or to put in process (as by chastise- 
ment and discipline) of becoming prudent or 
discreet. What, then, becomes of ** hapto to 
dip, hapiizo to make one dip, that is, to im- 
merse ?" The very examples which Dr. 



39 

Fuller has cited confute his theory, and show 
that the value of the addition of zo, in Greek, 
does not enforce the primitive verb> but sig- 
nifies a condition or process only approxima- 
tive towards the action or thing signified in 
the original word. And as his examples fail 
to bear him out, his theory, of course, falls 
to the ground. 

But if we were even to grant the analogies 
which he has attempted to draw, it must not 
be overlooked that to dip is not the entire or 
only meaning of hapto. According to his 
own showing it means "to tinge as dyers." 
In that case haptizo would signify to make 
one tinge as dyers! Pickering and Dunbar 
give as a meaning of haptOy " to be lost as a 
ship;' haptizo would then mean, to make one 
lost as a ship! Liddell and Scott and Dun- 
bar assign as a meaning of hapto, "to dye 
the hair ;'' haptizo would then mean, to make 
one dye the hair! Pickering, Dunbar and 
others say that hapto means, " to fill by draw- 
ing up ;" haptizo would then mean, to make 
one fill hy drawing up ! And Grove, Schreve- 
lius and Scapula give to sprinkle as a mean- 



40 

ing of hapto ; haptizo would then mean, /o 
make one sprinkle !! How edifying is the 
operation of this Fullerian law of analogy ! 
How admirably it proves that " baptizo sig- 
nifies to immerse, and has no other mean- 
ing !" And yet this is the sort of '' argu- 
ment^' by which we are to be unchurched 
and convicted of unfitness to have a place at 
the Lord's table. 

The next item in this ^^ calm philological 
inquiry" is in the shape of an authority from 
that Corypheus of Greek scholars, Dr. Per- 
son ; but which Dr. Fuller, as a lawyer, 
knows, could not be admitted in a court of 
justice, even in a case involving no more 
than dollars and cents. 

The story runs thus : that a certain Mr. 
Newman accompanied an acquaintance in a 
friendly call upon Dr. Person, just a few 
months previous to his death; that something 
was said in that interview about some Greek 
words; that after Dr. Person's death this Mr. 
Newmaji wrote a letter to some unknown par- 
ty, which letter, in some unknown way, came 
into the hands of a rabid Baptist controver- 



41 

sialist, Mr. Carson, and was by him "pub- 
lished, and from him quoted by Dr. Fuller; 
that it is said, in said letter, that Dr. Porson 
said, *^ that if there be a difference (between 
bapto and baptizo,) he should take the latter to 
be the strongest ;" and that Mr. Carson said, 
that Mr. Newman said, that Dr. Porson said, 
" that it (baptizo) signifies a total immer- 
sion !" This is the whole story. Is it to be 
received as evidence in "a calm philological 
inquiry as to the meaning of a Greek word ?" 
Are we to decide a question of eternal life 
or eternal death by testimony which not a 
judge in the land would permit to go before 
a jury ? And even admitting that this testi- 
mony is to be relied on, that Dr. Fuller has 
quoted it correctly, that Mr. Carson pub- 
lished it as it was written, that Mr. Newman 
was accurate in his recollections and report- 
ed them faithfully, and that the whole thing 
is certainly and surely Dr. Porson's opinion, 
it will be perceived that the opinion is only 
given hypothetically, " if there be a differ- 
ence," so and so; leaving us to infer that 
there was strong doubt in Dr. Porson's mind 



42 

as to whether haptizo does not mean just the 
same as hapto, to which he assigned the sig- 
nification of ''iinge.'^ Arid that he should 
also assign to it the meaning of " a total im- 
mersion," is nothing more than what all 
parties are ready to admit; the question be- 
ing, not whether baptisio ever means to im- 
merse, but whether it never means any thing 
else, and whether this is the sense to be 
assio;ned to it where it is used to designate 
the ordinance of Christian baptism? If it 
will be any consolation to Dr. Fuller, or of 
any service to his cause, we here admits 
freely and without hesitation, that haptizo 
often does mean to immerse — to submerge — 
to put under the water — to put under the 
water mjver to come out again— and to over- 
whelm and cover up in the very bottom of 
the sea, to remain there till the sounding of 
the archangel's trumpet. But that this is 
its meaning when applied to the sacrament 
of baptism is what remains for Dr. Fuller to 
prove, is what no man has ever yet proven, 
and what no man ever can prove. 

So much then for the second step in Dr, 



43 

Fuller's "calm philological inquiry." Que- 
ry : Has the reader found any thing as yet 
to prove that Christ's comn^iand to baptize is 
a command to immerse and nothing else ? 
But we must pursue the Doctor's ^-argu- 
ment," for surely, 

***Tis the rarest argument of wonder, 
That hath shot out in our later times' 



44 



CHAPTER IV. 

Explanations — " Justice " — Reply to him— 
A digression. 

So much of this Review as is contained in 
the preceding chapters, had already gone \q 
press, and appeared before the public through 
the " Lutheran Observer," when the sub- 
joined communication came into our hands. 
The writer of it, whom we take to be Dr. 
Fuller himself, wishes to correct a statement 
which v/e made, relative to Dr. Fuller's 
blunder in referring us for one of his quota- 
tions to a book which has no existence. The 
following is a copy of the paper. It is 
directed to the Editor of the Lutheran Ob- 
server, and was designed for insertion in 
that periodical. 

Baltimore, April 5, 1854. 

Rev, and Dear Sir: — I am following your 

correspondent's Review of Dr. Fuller oa 

Baptism. He charges that, on p. 21, the 

Doctor quotes " The Fifth Book of Calvin^s 



45 

Instiiuies,^' )\ have turned to Dr. Fuller's 
work, p. 21, third edition, and find no such 
tjuotation. It is quoted Book 4, ch. 15, p, 
19. I am sure you will, in justice, insert 
this. I hope your correspondent will use 
the revised edition, as he seeks truth, and 
not the blunders of the Press, especially 
when they have been corrected. 

Justice. 

The receipt of this paper furnished us 
tangible evidence, that our review was ex- 
citing attention, and producing uneasiness. 
And as we were willing to give "Justice'' 
the beneSt of his explanation, and designed 
to take no unfair advantages of Dr. Fuller, 
we at once wrote to the Editor, for insertion 
in the Lutheran Observer, the following 
statement, under the head of Addenda to our 
Review. 

Mr. Editor,— I have received the article 
you did me the favor to forward to me, dated 
*« Baltimore, April 5, 1854,'' and signed 
"Justice," in which the writer says, that 
the Third Edition of Fuller's book does not 
contain the reference to the "Fifth Book of 
5 



46 

Calvin's Institutes," and asks that this nnay 
be stated. Certainly, if the statement will 
be of any avail, let it be made. Let justice 
be done. When my second article was 
penned, the Third Edition of Fuller on Bap- 
tism vi^as as much unknown to me as the 
'' Fifth Book of Calvin's Institutes." The 
review professes to be a review of the Second 
and not of the Third edition. And neither 
Dr. Fuller nor his friend, will dare to say 
that the reference to Calvin as stated, is not 
in the edition under review. 

'' Justice" complains that I have not used 
'' the revised edition." That is exactly what 
I supposed I was doing. A second edition 
of a book ought to be considered a revised 
edition surely, and the second edition is the 
one I had undertaken to review. 

After much effort I have now secured the 
Third — " the revised edition." By the way, 
how does it happen, that " Fuller on Baptism 
and Communion," which has now reached 
the third edition, is not for sale in the book 
stores of Baltimore, where the author re- 
sides? A friend whom I engaged to procure 



47 

it, tells^me that he was half a day or more 
finding a copy. Is it used by Baptists only 
in a private way to gull the weak and unin- 
formed ? Fortunately I now have '^ the re- 
vised edition" and shall hereafter use it 
alone. It bears the date, "Charleston, ?. C. 
1854." My review was commenced about 
the first of February, 1854; and yet "Jus- 
tice" conplains that I used the second edition, 
allowing but one month for the publication of 
the book and its shipment in mid-winter 
from a far off city to Baltimore, to say nothr- 
ing of the difficulties in the way of its reach- 
ing my humble retreat ! The spirit of 
Egyptian task-masters still survives. 

Well, true enough, in this edition of 1854, 
the reference to the Fifth Book of Calvin's 
Institutes is rescinded. We are glad of it. 
It was an ugly thing to be paraded around 
in two entire editions. We now have in its 
place, " Lib. 4, cha'p. 15, sec. 19." This 
looks a little more like the thing; but it 
does not much help the matter. The quota- 
tion for which Dr. Fuller refers to this place, 
IS in these words — " The word baptize sig- 



48 

nifies to immerse, and the rite of immersion 
was performed by the ancient church.'^ 
Who is at fault now, in this ^^ revised edi- 
tion ?" The words, *^ the rite,'^^ are not in 
Calvin's version of this passage. Calvin 
never could have spoken of " the rite'^ of 
immersion. But Calvin does say, and in 
this very place, and in this very paragraph, 
what Dr. Fuller did not find to his purpose 
to quote, tha: ''whether the person who is 
baptized be wholly immersed, and whether 
thrice or once, or whether water be only 
poured or sprinkled upon him, is of no import- 
ance; churches ought to be left at liberty in 
this respect.'' Institutes of the Christian 
Religion, by John Calvin ; Lib. 4. ch. 15^ 
sec. 19. 

By inserting this, you will at once do jus« 
tice to Dr. Fuller, Calvin, and myself. 
Yery thankfully, 

FiDELis Scrutator. 

We give this as a little episode, not worth 
much in itself, but which may serve to ex- 
plain why we set out to Review the second, 
and not the third edition of Dr. Fuller's 



49 

book, and at the same time give him the 
advantage of the fact, that his reference to 
Calvin's Institutes in the third edition is to 
the fourth book, and not to a non-existent 
jifih book, as in the two previous editions. 

From this out, however, our Review is to 
be taken as a Review of the Third Edition 
of Dr. Fuller's book — the edition which 
"Justice," though nobody else, styles " the 
revised edition,^' We shall show that it 
needs still another, and much more thorough 
revision. 

So much for our digression. 



5* 



§0 



CHAPTER V. 

tR plain matter — Different memmigs to the 
same loords — Baptizo as used hy the hea- 
then — Has other meanings beside that of a 
total immersion — Testimony of lexicogra-- 
phers — Instances from the christian Fath- 
ers. 

Our friend, " Richard Fuller," having in- 
sinuated, in^the way that we have exposed, 
that baptizo means to immerse, now endeav- 
ors to ^x this upon the mind of the reader 
as its only meaning. The manner in which 
he does this is hy giving us the bold, unqual- 
ified and naked assumption, that no one word 
can have more than one meaning. " The 
assertion." says he, " that baptizo has three 
different meanings, only proves how strange- 
ly controversy can blind the mind to the 
plainest things." '^ To say that a word 
means three distinct things is to say that it 
means neither of them. . And this is true 
of the most general words." *'The puerili- 
ties of which men are guilty on this plain 
matter are surprising;" p. 14. 



51 

A "plain matter" it certainly is ; and how 
a fair and honest man can thus contradict so 
<^plain a matter" as, that a word may have 
more than one meaning, we cannot under- 
stand. Dr. Fuller knows, he must know, 
that there are multitudes of words, each of 
which has various shades of signification and 
very different meanings. He has told us, 
moreover, that *^no one ought to substitute 
for proof his own assertion." And yet we 
have here, as an essential link in his "ar- 
gument," nothing but assertion, unaccom- 
panied with, the merest shadow of proof, and 
as far from truth as heaven is from earth. 
It seems like pedantry and puerility to reply 
to an error so palpable and egregious; but 
we are sometimes called on to prove that 
two and two make four. Let the reader 
look at the following instances of the differ- 
ent meanings of the same words selected 
from a dozen languages. 

The Hebrew word hara means to create, 
to fatten, and to cut off. The Greek word 
lego means to speak, to choose, to reckon up, 
and to lie down to rest ; and Shrevelius 



52 

assigns lallo seventeen meanings. The Chal- 
dee word larak means to bless, to salute, to 
bend the knee, to dig, to plow, and to set slips 
for propagation. The Russian word uberayer 
means to put in order, to mow or reap, and 
to dress the hair. The Arabic word faraJca 
means to separate, to withdraw, to lay open, 
to cast out, and to immerse. The Italian 
word parare means to prepare, to garnish, to 
parry, to repair, and to stop a horse. The 
Dutch word heeten means to heat, to name, 
and to command. The German word ver- 
messen means to measure, to measure wrong, 
to dare, to arrogate, to swear or protest with 
solemn asseverations, and to profess with 
high and boasting words. The Spanish 
word parar means to prepare, to stop, detain, 
prevent, to end, to treat or use ill, and to 
stake at cards. The Latin word euro means 
to take care of, to provide, to refresh one's 
self with meat, to cook meat, to bring to 
pass, to command in war, to pay homage to, 
to cure, and to expiate or atone. The French, 
word tirer means to draw, to free or rid from, 
to reap, to deduce, to extract, to stretch, and 



53 

to shoot ; and louer, to hire, to lease, to praise, 
and to applaud. The English word spring 
means a leap, a part of a watch, one of the 
seasons, and a fountain of water. Cleave 
means to adhere and to divide. And Web- 
ster assigns to the word turn thirty-two 
transitive and twenty intransitive significa- 
tions. But, according to Dr. Fuller, it is 
"puerility" and "folly" to assert that a word 
can have more than one meaning ! Is this 
the man to conduct a " calm philological in- 
quiry," by which to convict the Christian 
world of disobedience to a positive command 
of God ? Is this the sort of proof to show 
that baptizo has no other meaning but im- 
merse ? Alas I what "an argument" "in 
a matter of such moment as obedience to 
Jesus Christ !" 

But, as Dr. Fuller persists in the assertion, 
that " haptizo always denotes a total immer- 
sion," and " has no other meaning," we pro- 
ceed to show that he is as far from the truth 
in this particular instance, as in the general 
rule 

The primary meaning of baptizo, as used 



54 

by the ancient heathen Greeks, is to dip. This 
is the first signification assigned to it by the 
great majority of lexicographers. But the 
word d?p does not always and absolutely 
mean a total immersion. It means also to 
moisten ; to wet ; to incline downward as the 
magnetic needle ; to engage partially in a 
thing, as " He was a little dipt in the rebel- 
lion of the commons;'' to enter slightly, as 
to dip into a volume of history ; to engage in 
to a small extent, as to dip into the funds ; to 
enter or pierce with the extreme point of 
any thing, as to dip the end of the finger. We 
shall show, however, that even to dip is not 
the exclusive and only meaning of hapiizo^ 
much less a total immersion. 

Our first reference is to standard lexicog- 
raphers. 

Pickering defines baptizo, to dip ; to im- 
merse \ to sink ; to overwhelm ; to wet ; to 
wash; to make drunk ; to cleanse. Dunbar 
defines it, to dip ; to immerse; to sink ; to 
soak ; to wash. Liddell and Scott, to dip re- 
peatedly; to dip under; to bathe; to wet ; to 
pour upon ; to drench ; to overwhelm, as a 



55 

boy with questions ; to dip a vessel ; to draw 
water. Grove, to dip ; to immerse ; to wash ; 
to cleanse ; to purify ; to depress; to hum- 
ble ; to overwhelm; to wash one's self j to 
bathe; to faint ; to be dejected. Donegan, 
to immerse repeatedly in a liquid ; to satu- 
rate ; to drench with wine ; to confound total- 
ly, Montfaucon, in his concordance of the 
Greek version of the Old Testament, trans- 
lates it by immergo, to plunge, to flounce, to 
drench ; tingOj to dye, color, stain, sprinkle, 
imbrue, wash, pam^; and perturho, to disturhj 
trouble, disorder, distract. Schleusner, in 
his Thesaurus, translates it by immergo, to 
lounge, flounce, drench; intingo, to dip, dye, 
color ; and perlurbo, to disturb, trouble, dis- 
order, distract. Schrevelius renders it mer- 
go, to dip in, immerse, overwhelm, ruin, de- 
stroy ; ahluo, to wash clean, to wash away, 
purify, blot out ; and Javo, to wash, rinse, 
bathe, hesprinkle, purge, expiate, throw off. 
Scapula also translates it with alluo and lavo; 
whilst Parkhurst gives it six meanings. It 
is true that a certain Baptist controvertist 
*' blames him'^ for it ; but he, nevertheless, 



56 

was a distinguished and learned old divine, 
a profound linguist, the author of sonne of our 
very best lexicons, and, we suppose, entitled 
to as much respect as his censors, whether 
in the shape of the bombastic Carson, or the 
insinuating Fuller. 

Here then we have ten or twelve of our 
great standard lexicographers, depending for 
their reputation upon the accuracy with 
which they have translated the Greek lan- 
guage, each one giving various and different 
meanings to the word in question. Some of 
them lived centuries ago, even before Dr% 
Fuller or his particular denomination had a 
being, and all of them are acknowledged to 
be lights of Greek learning. And yet we 
are now to set them all aside as " school* 
boysj" teaching nothing but "puerilities;" 
and that at or on the mere ipse dixit of Dr. 
Fuller, that baptize a^z^a^5 means to immerse 
and has no other meaning.—^ te peto ut nlu 
quid imperlias iemporis hide eogitaiioni. 

But we will not stop with the testimony of 
the legicographers. Dr. Fuller reiterates 
that baptizo never means any thing but im- 



67 

mersej and with an air of triumph chal* 
lenges the world to produce testimony to the 
contrary. He shall have it. He has it al- 
ready. But we will furnish it to him in 
still more copious profusion, by the produc- 
tion of passages in which it is impossihie to 
assign to baptizo the meaning of immerse. 

Dr. Fuller will certainly agree with what 
his predecessors have said, that the native 
Greeks must understand their own language 
better than foreigners. He must also admit 
that the earlier Christian teachers were bet- 
ter prepared to testify to the true scope of 
the meaning of baptizo than the modern 
controversialist, committed to the support of 
a sectarian system. To the writings of these 
earlier, and mostly Greek, Christian writers, 
we therefore make our appeal ; humbly pre- 
suming that the old poets and philosophers, 
who lived before the Saviour's time, did not 
very thoroughly comprehend in what sense 
words were used by Christ and his apostles. 

The first passage we adduce is from Cle- 
mens Alexandrinus, p. 387, Lugduni Batav. 
1616. He is speaking on the subject of 
6 



58 

baptism, and refers to some passages in Ho* 
mer to show that traces of the typical purifi- 
cations of Moses are to be found even in the 
heathen world. His language is, *'Penel- 
ope, having washed herself and having on 
her body clean apparel, goes to prayer ; 
Odys., 4 : 759.* Telemachusj having wash- 
ed his hands in the hoary sea, prayed to 
Minerva ; Odys., 2 : 26 Lf This may be an 
image of baptism handed down from Moses 
to the poets; for this was the custom of the 
Jews, that they also should be often baptized 
(baptizesthai) upon their couch." 

The Jews were accustomed to recline On 
couches during meals. These couches were 
ordinarily large enough to hold from three 
to five persons. And Clement here tells us 
that it was the custom of the Jews to be 
frequently baptized whilst thus reclining at 
meals. And are we to be told that four or 
five men, upon a couch at dinner, were ac 

* Pope has it thus^-- 

" She dathes, and robed, the sacred dome ascends, 

And thus the queen invokes Minerva's aid." — Od. 4: 1001. 

t " There, as the waters o^er Ids hands he shed. 

The royal suppliant to Minerva prayed." — Pope's Od. 2: 295. 



59 

customed to be immersed several times whilst 
partaking of their meal ? Are we to imagine 
pulleys fixed over the various couches in the 
dining-room, with ropes attached to the cor- 
ners and a baptistery under the floor, wuth 
trapdoors opening under the suspended guests 
to let couches, men and all down under the 
water every now and then as the eating pro- 
gressed ? And besides the utter violence 
and absurdity of such a supposition, the sim- 
ple washing (hudralno) of Penelope, in which 
no mode is indicated, and the mere wetting 
of the hands (nipto) of Telemachus, which 
Clement here gives as corresponding to the 
Jewish purifications at meals, completely and 
inevitably exclude the idea that the baptism 
of which he is speaking was ^-a total im- 
mersion." 

Our next passage is from Justin Martyr, 
p. 164, London, 1772. '' What is the profit 
of that baptism which purifies the flesh and 
the body alone ? Be baptized as to your souls, 
from anger and from covetousness, from envy 
and from hatred, and lo! your body is pure." 
Does baptism here mean a total immersion ? 



60 

Is immersion for the purpose of purity a thing 
that can be predicated of the mind or spirit ? 
The mind is sometimes spoken of as im- 
mersed in cares, troubles, and pollution ; but 
is it, or can it ever be, spoken of as immersed 
for mental purity ? Can we speak of being 
immersed yrom (apo) anger, a.nd from covet- 
ousness, from envy, and from hatred ? Un- 
questionably, the sense is not immersion, but 
to cleanse and purify. 

Origen, in his Seventh Homily on the 6th 
of Judges, says, " The outpouring of his 
(Christ's) blood is denominated a lapismJ^ 
Is the outpouring of the Saviour's blood an 
immersion 1 How can it be? 

The same father, in his notes on Matt. 
20 : 21, 22, says also, that "Martyrdom is 
rightfully called a baptism,'^ But is mar- 
tyrdom a fluid ? Can we conceive of an 
immersion in martyrdom ? We can con- 
ceive of a purification by martyrdom, but all 
idea of immersion in it is sheer absurdity. 

Ambrose (vol. 2, p. 333, Paris, 1690,) 
has this passage : ** He who is baptized, both 
according to the law and according to the 



61 

gospel, is made clean." Here the sense of 
cleanse is explicitly given to baptizo. Does 
Dr. Fuller wish us to presume that it is a 
cleansing by immersion ? Let him read a 
little further. " According to the law, (he 
that is baptized is made clean,) because 
Moses, loith a Iranch of hyssop, sprinkled 
the Hood of a lamhJ' The whole allusion 
is to the sprinkling of the blood of the pas- 
chal lamb on the door-posts, by which the 
Israelites were saved when the destroying 
angel passed through Egypt. And this 
sprinkling of blood around the door Ambrose 
calls a baptism. Will any man presume to 
say that that sprinkling of blood was a total 
immersion ? 

Cyril of Alexandria, on Is. 4 : 4, vol. 2^ 
Paris, 1833, says : " We have been baptized, 
not v/ith mere water, nor yet with the ashes 
of a heifer, but with the Holy Ghost and fire." 
Here we have a recognition of three bap- 
tisms, one by water, one by the Spirit and 
another with the ashes of a heifer. Are we 
to understand this last as an immersion in the 
ashes of a heifer ? Let Paul answer : '* The 
6* 



62 

ashes of a heifer, sprinkling the unclean, 
sanctifieth to the purification of the flesh." 
Tertullian, De Baptismo, p. 257, Paris, 
1634, has this passage : '^ At the sacred rites 
of Isis, or Mithra, they are initiated hy a 
washing ; they carry out their gods with 
washings ; they expiate villas, houses, tem- 
ples, and whole cities, by sprinkling with 
water carried around. Certainly they are 
purified in the Appolinarian and Eleusinian 
rites ; and they say that they do this to ob- 
tain regeneration and to escape the punish- 
ment of their perjuries. Also, among the 
ancients, whoever had stained himself with 
murder, exp'ated himself with purifying 
water. In view of these things, we see the 
zeal of the devil in rivaling the things of God, 
inasmuch as he thus a^so practices hapiism 
among his own people." Here we have a 
description of the various lustrations and 
expiations performed by the devil's people, 
not only upon their own bodies, but also 
upon "villas, houses, temples and wJioIe cit- 
ies,^"^ and that ''hy sprinkling with water car- 
ried around,^' And yet Tertullian sums.it 



63 

all up as the deviVs '- baptism^^^ (baptismum.) 
Will any one have the effrontery to say that 
he meant immersion ? 

We have before us another passage from 
Justin Martyr, (where it is to be found in 
his works we have not had the time to as- 
certain, but we have no doubt of its genuine- 
ness,) in which he also speaks of the purifi- 
cations copied by the heathen from the ordi- 
nances of Christianity. '• The demons," 
says he, " hearing of this washing, or purifi- 
cation, proclaimed by the prophet, caused 
those entering into their temples to sprinkle 
themselves, ^^ Now, if the demons were thus 
imitating God's purification, and that divine 
purification was a washing by immersion, 
how does it happen that they caused their 
worshipers ^' to 5/)nnHe themselves?" How 
could sprinkling be a copy of immersion? 

In Ambrose, vol. 1, p. 356, Paris, 1690, 
we have this question: '' Unde sit baptisma 
nisi de cruce Christi, de morte Christi ?" 
*^ Whence is haptism, (i. e., forgiveness and 
purification.) except from the cross of Christ, 
from the death of Christ." Does baptism 



64 

mean immersion here ? Is there any such 
thing as immersion from the cross and death 
of Christ? 

In vol. 2, p. 355, the same father, taking 
a general survey of the Jewish and heathen 
absolutions, thus sums up the whole matter- 
" There are many kinds of purifications, 
(haptismatum,) but the apostle proclaims one 
baptism. Why? There are purifications 
(baptismata) of the nations, but they are not 
purifications, (baptismata.) Washings they 
are; purifications (baptismata) they cannot 
be. The body is washed, but sin is not 
washed away, nay, in that washing sin 
is contracted. There were also ablutions 
(baptismata) of the Jews; some superfluous, 
others typical." Why were these Jewish 
and heathen baptisms no baptisms? Because 
'- sin is not washed away" in them. But 
whether immersion washes away sin or not, 
is it not still an immersion ? Could Ambrose 
have been guilty of saying, " Immersions 
they are, but immersions they cannot be ?" 
Does not every one see at a glance that here 
the word baptism, in the very same sentence, 



65 

has more than one meaning and must be so 
rendered ? 

Cyprian, on 1 Kings 38 : 33, calls the 
pouring of the water upon the altar and hewn 
bullock, in Elijah's sacrifice, a haptism. 
Was it an immersion ? 

In a paper ascribed to Athanasius, found 
in the wol-ks of John of Damascus, it is said 
that '' John was baptized (ehaptisthce) by- 
placing his hand on the divine head of his 
Master. '^ Is the placing of a hand on an- 
other's head an immersion ? 

Anastasius (Biblo. Patrum, vol. 5, p. 958) 
speaks of baptism as poured into water-pots, 
and of water-pots as baptized by pouring 
baptism into them. Can immersion be pour- 
ed ? And he also speaks of this very trans- 
action as a type of the baptism of the Gen- 
tiles. Did he mean that the Gentiles were 
to be immersed by pouring immersion upon 
them? 

Ambrose (Apol. David, section 59) says, 
"He who desired to be purified with a typi- 
cal baptism was sprinkled with the blood of 
a lamb by means of a bunch of hyssop." 



66 

But how could such a sprinkling be a type 
of immersion ? 

What shall v/e say, then, to these things? 
that baptizo means a total immersion, and 
nothing else ? Have not nearly a dozen (all 
that we have consulted on this occasion,) 
among our most distinguished lexicographers 
testified directly to the contrary ? Have we 
not shown that the wetting (nipto) of the 
hands of Telemachus, and the lustrations of 
the Jews on their couches while at meals, 
and the sprinkling of the blood of a iamb 
with hyssop, are called baptisms, and given 
as types of the christian ordinance of bap- 
tism ? Have we not shown that the inward 
purgation of the soul from anger, covetous- 
ness, envy and hatred — the outpouring of the 
blood of Christ on the cross — the supposed 
absolution conferred by martyrdom — the 
sprinkling of the blood of the paschal lamb 
on the door-posts of the Jews in Egypt — the 
sprinkling of the ashes of a heifer — the sprink- 
ling of water by the heathen upon villas, 
houses, temples, and even entire cities — the 
remission of sins from the cross and death of 



67 

Christ— the purification of pots by pouring in 
water — and even the laying of John's hand 
upon the Saviour's head, — instances in which 
all idea of immersion is totally excluded,— 
all are designated by baptizo in one or the 
other of ils forms, and that too by great Chris- 
tian teachers in various ages of the early 
church, most of whom were native Greeks, 
who must have known the meaning of the 
language which they spoke ? And in the 
face of all this, must we yei believe that there 
is no baptism where there is no immersion ? 
We put it to Dr, Fuller, as an honest man, 
and a Christian minister, to say whether he 
is not mistaken, and has not broached a doc- 
trine so untenable as to be in honor bound to 
withdraw or modify it ? Or, if he is "joined 
to his idols," we put it to the good sense of 
every reader, whether we have not proven 
his assertions on this point to be mere truth- 
less dogmatisms ; and whether Dr. Fuller 
has proceeded in this matter with that fair- 
ness and love for truth becoming an honest 
man of God, professedly engaged in laying 
down to the church and to the world what 



68 

the Divine commands and our duties are ? 
We join him in the exclamation, "How aw. 
ful a thing thus to misguide men as to a sol- 
emn ordinance of the gospels" 



69 



CHAPTER VI. 

Dr. Fuller's hopeless refuge — His instances 
from the classics — The necessity upon him 
to prove a negative — His authorities — Pres^ 
ent condition of the argument. 

Thus far we have shown that Dr. FuUer^s 
theory, that a word cannot have more than 
one meaning, rests upon mere groundless 
assertion, at war with the common every.day 
use of language and with the usus loquendi 
of languages generally. We have also 
shown, from numerous standard lexicogra- 
phers and from fourteen different passages 
from the fathers, who must have understood 
the scriptural use of the word, that baptizo 
has other meanings than that of " a total 
immersion." So far then Dr. Fuller's as- 
sumptions are upset and gone beyond re- 
covery. 

It seems too that he himself anticipated 
such a result, and like the unjust steward, 
cunningly provided for himself a way of es- 
cape from the just consequences of his pre- 
7 



70 

sumption and unfair dealing when the day 
of reckoning should come. In regard to the 
word spring, (and this is a remark which he 
intends to apply to all instances of words of 
different meanings,) he says, " A schoolboy 
sees that these are different words, though 
similarly spelt, and perhaps traceable to the 
same origin ;" p. 14. Very well ; let us 
follow him into this retreat. 

We have demonstrated that baptizo has 
other meanings than that of " a total immer- 
sion." Upon the theory then in which Dr. 
Fuller has taken refuge there must be va- 
rious haptizos, one meaning -' a total immer- 
sion," one to dip, another to stain, another 
simply to wash, another to sprinkle, another 
to pour upon, another to draw water, another 
to bathe one's self, another to purify, another 
to be lost, another to wet, another to trouble, 
another to destroy utterly, another to drown, 
another to expiate, and so on. His position 
therefore narrows itself to this: that the 
baptizo employed in the Saviour's command 
and elsewhere used in the New Testament 
to designate Christian baptism, is the baptizo 



71 

that means "a total immersion." Have we 
not a right then to demand the proof for this ? 
Has he given it? No. Has he even at- 
tempted to give it? Not a word. ^^ A 
schoolboy sees ii^^ is his whole argument on 
the subject ! 

Now such claptrap and trickery may an- 
swer for ^^ schoolboys ;" but we trow that 
sensible minds will not be willing to call 
that *^a calm philological inquiry" in which 
it occurs, nor esteem it sufficient to convict 
the great Christian world of dereliction from 
essential duty. And we also promise, when 
we come to the proper place, to prove, what 
in this debate we are not logically bound to 
prove in order to refute the Baptist theory, 
that the baptizo used in the Scriptures to de- 
note the Christian ordinance of baptism has 
a different sense from that limited word 
which " denotes a total immersion and has 
no other meaning." 

We proceed now to notice the instances 
alleged by Dr. Fuller to show that baptizo 
means a total immersion and nothing else. 
He savs that he takes them^'ai randomJ^ 



72 

In this declaration we feel bound to agree 
with him, for ''random'^ quotations they cer- 
tainly are. 

The first observation that we have to make 
upon these alleged passages is, that they are 
all, without a single exception, drawn from 
old heathen authors who lived before the 
time of Christ, And we submit it to Dr. 
Fuller, or any reasonable man, whether it is 
possible to learn in what sense baptizo was 
used by Jesus and his apostles from those 
who never knew any thing about Christian 
ordinances, and who lived and wrote some 
hundreds of years before Christ? 

In the next place, these very quotations 
show that even in the estimation of the old 
heathen Greeks baptizo does not uniformly 
convey the meaning for which our learned 
prosecutor contends. 

In the first instance it is used to denote 
the setting of the sun behind the western 
ocean. Is the setting of the sun behind the 
sea *' a total immersion ?'' Then for the 
candidate for baptism to pass behind the 
cistern containing the baptismal water is 



73 

just as much an immersion as to go into the 
cistern and to be covered up by the water 
in actual contact with his person. Was the 
sun ever in actual contact with the waters 
of the sea ? 

In the second instance it is used to denote 
the action of the smith in putting the heated 
metal into the water for the purpose of tem- 
pering it. This we suppose to be a genuine 
case of immersion. 

In the third, fourth, fifth, eleventh, thir- 
teenth and fourteenth instances baptizo is 
used to denote the loss of men and vessels 
of war by sinking to the bottom of the sea. 
If it then is to be taken in this sense, Dr. 
Fuller, according to his own showing, is 
bound to sink his candidates to the bottom 
and to leave and keep them there. The 
emersion, or rising again, is altogether for- 
eign to the meaning of the word. He him- 
self declares " Baptizo has nothing to do 
with the rising again. The word, I repeat 
it, means nothing hut immerse. No one word 
can express both an immersion and an emer- 
sion;" p. 19. *^ Jesus commands his disci- 
7* 



74 

pies to be immersed;^' p. 70. We hold him 
then to his own assertions and examples, and 
insist that^ by his own admissions, he is vi- 
olating the command by again bringing his 
immersed subjects up out of the water. '* Is 
it not a fearful thing to alter an ordinance 
instiluted by the Lord Jesus ?" p. 49. 

In the sixth instance baptizo denotes the 
dipping of a vessel in a fountain to take up 
water. Is it common, in performing such 
an operation, to submerse entirely the vessel 
in every part, handle and all ? 

In the seventh instance baptizo denotes the 
act of the crow washing her head and breast. 
Most persons perhaps have seen this perform- 
ance. And is the splashing of this bird with 
its head and wings upon the margin of a lake 
or stream " a total immersion V How far 
from it ! 

In the eighth and tenth instances it is used 
to signify the act of drowning in the waves. 
Was Christ's command to baptiza a com- 
mand to drown in the waves, or to sink be- 
neath the surges for the purpose of drown- 
ing? 



75 

In the ninth instance it is used to denote 
the act of dissolving Cupid in wine in order 
to drink him.. Is the command to baptize 
men a command to form a solution of them 
in order to drink them ? 

In the twelfth instance it is used to express 
the effect of the sudden overflowing of the 
Nile in overwhelming those animals that 
failed to escape from the rush of the out- 
spreading waters. Is the commission to 
baptize a command to pour a furious and 
sudden overflowing stream upon men, so as 
to sweep them utterly away and destroy 
them? 

These are the passages cited by our au- 
thor, and relied on by him to carry his con- 
tracted interpretation of baptizo. The read- 
er will see at once, from Dr. Fuller's own 
citations, how equivocal and various is the 
meaning assigned to this word, even by the 
old classic Greeks; and that, if Dr. Fuller 
would undertake faithfully to administer 
baptism according to the exact import of the 
word in the passages he has adduced, he 
would dip and splash the head and shoulders 



76 

of some, immerse some, dissolve some, sink 
others to the bottom never to rise again, 
plunge some in the waves to destroy them, 
overwhelm some with an overflowing and 
rushing flood, and let some off* by simply 
passing them behind the baptismal pool, 
without even being touched with water. 

But we must not be too severe in our criti- 
cism of these passages, as they are profess- 
edly only given " at random ;" and serious 
inquirers after the way of obedience to Jesus 
Christ are not likely to be convinced that 
the great body of Protestant Christendom is 
apostate from Christ by a dozen of ''random" 
quotations from the old heathen classics. 

But suppose that we admit, for the sake of 
argument, that all these passages go directly 
to the point and furnish incontestible proof 
that baptizo has in them the exclusive signi- 
fication which Dr, Fuller wishes to impose 
upon it; that proof cannot go farther than 
these particular passages themselves. If 
even a hundred more instances to the same 
effect were produced, as they doubtless might 
be, they could prove nothing at all as to the 



77 

meaning of baptizo in ten thousand other 
places. The most ordinary thinker can pro- 
duce instances without number in which the 
word let signifies to permit; but can they 
prove that Shakspeare did not use it in the 
sense oi' hinder? We freely admit that bap- 
tizo often does mean to immerse, and can 
give instances to this effect as strong and 
direct as any adduced by our industrious 
prosecutor. It is utter supererogation to 
be so voluminous in proof of what nobody 
denies. And it is amazing to see how Bap- 
tist writers trouble themselves and pile up 
authorities to establish a point which is not 
at all in question. No sensible man to our 
knowledge has ever refused to concede that 
baptizo frequently means to immerse, espe- 
cially in the old classics. But before Dr. 
Fuller is competent to say that it means 
nothing else and is never used in any other 
sense, he must have examined every passage 
in the Greek language in which this word 
occurs; for if there should remain but one 
single instance of the use of the word which 
has not been ascertained by actual exam- 



7S 

ination, there must still be a proportionate 
degree of doubt upon the positive truth of his 
assertion. Has he then examined all such 
passages? He certainly will make no such 
pretensions. From certain indications, which 
we will not stop to point out, we are con- 
strained to believe that he has not examined 
in their original connections even the tenth 
part of those passages which he has trans- 
ferred to his pages. How utterly incompe- 
tent then, not to use a severer term, is such 
a man to tell the world that baptizo means 
to immerse, and never has any other meaningf 
The reader will thus perceive what a 
hopeless task Dr. Fuller has undertaken to 
perform, and how entirely insufficient his 
quotations are to effect the end for which 
they are given. His assertion, and the sys- 
tem which rests upon it, absolutely demand 
of him, so that he is both logically and mor- 
ally bound to do, in order to sustain himself, 
what no man before him has ever been able 
to accomplish, i. e., to prove a npgative. No 
man can prove that there are no worlds in 
God's universe but those discernible by the 



79 

eyes of an earthly beholder, without an ac- 
tual exploration of creation's limils. No 
man can prove that there is no member of 
the human race bearing the name of Beelze- 
bub, without first ascertaining what each 
individual's name is. And so, when Dr. 
Fuller says, " I will prove the negative," (p. 
32,) and undertakes to show that baptizo 
never means any thing but immerse, he 
obligates himself to go through with a dem- 
onstration which must for ever remain in- 
complete and unsatisfactory, until he has 
seen and ascertained its signification in every 
sentence in which it occurs in the whole 
round of Greek literature. And until he has 
completed this work of exploration, and made 
his assertion good in every existing passage 
containing baptizo, he has failed in his ob- 
ject, and his charge of criminal dereliction 
upon the great body of the Christian Church 
falls unsupported to the ground. 

The next step in this remarkable "philo- 
logical inquiry" furnishes us with a list of 
quotations from Calvin, Luther, Beza, Vit- 
ringa, Buddeus, Brenner, Scholtz, and per- 



80 

haps a dozen other authors, to prove, what? 
What nobody denies, — that baptizo has the 
meaning of immerse ! But what is the use 
of being so wonderfully erudite upon points 
where there is no dispute? It seems to be a 
settled part of Baptist logic to accumulate 
authorities upon things in which we all agree, 
in order, by an adroit petitio principii, to 
make it appear that they have triumphantly 
proven what they have not begun to prove. 
As an illustration of Dr. Fuller's charac- 
ter for fairness, we also direct the reader's 
attention to the fact that he calls these quo- 
tations '' concessions from learned men, not 
Baptists." Webster gives us pretty distinct- 
ly to understand that there can be no con^ 
cessions except in cases of dispute, or where 
something is demanded. But nearly, if not 
quite, all the authors named in this list lived 
anterior to the rise of the Baptist controversy 
or in countries where this subject was never 
mooted. They spoke these things, (if they 
ever did speak them as Dr. Fuller reports,) 
not in the way of concession to Baptist con- 
troversialists, but in the way of free etymo- 



81 

iogical illustrations of great spiritual truths; 
just as Dr. Chalmers refers to the practice 
of the Oriental churches of administering 
baptism by immersion. They did not mean 
to teach that immersion enters into the es- 
sence and validity of baptisnri ; they them- 
selves never were immersed ; they never 
practiced immersion, neither did they ever 
find fault with their own bapti'Sm because it 
was not performed by immersion. And yet, 
forsooth, Dr. Fuller would now have us to 
believe that they conceded, taught and were 
convinced that baptizo has no other meaning 
but immerse, and that where there is no im- 
mersion there is no baptism ! Yea, and pre- 
faces the whole thing with the declaration 
that there is not a single Baptist among 
them ! 

All these alleged "concessions" then, so 
far as they are of any force, amount to no 
more than what we ourselves have conced- 
ed ; and so far as concerns the real matter 
in dispute, might as well have been omitted 
as inserted. 

Here then we have Dr. Fuller's entire 
' 8 



82 

"argument;" respecting which he says, "It 
was the complaint of a writer that his oppo- 
nent did not know when a thing was proved. 
Every candid reader will, I think, grant that 
I have ascertained the meaning of baptizo. 
It signifies to immerse and has no other 
meaning!" p. 25. 

This certainly is cool ; and we have no 
doubt, an opinion very agreeable to himself 
and particularly comforting just at this point. 
We dislike to see a "good, easy man" dis- 
turbed in his enjoyment; and we are sorry, 
for Dr. Fuller's sake, that his complacency 
in this matter is in such serious danger of 
being interfered with. For the sake of truth, 
however, we submit it to " every candid 
reader," whether the Doctor has even begun 
to prove that baptizo has no meaning but 
that of a total immersion. Let us look back 
for a moment and bring together in one 
group the cardinal points that have been 
brought under review. 

Dr. Fuller says that a word cannot have 
more than one meaning. This theory we 
have utterly exploded, and demonstrated by 



83 

instances from a dozen different languages 
that the same words are often used in different 
senses; thus showing that it is no unheard 
of thing that baptizo should have different 
significations in different connections. 

Dr* Fuller asserts that baptizo has not, 
and cannot have, any other meaning but that 
of " a total immersion." In answer to this 
we have produced against him the testimony 
of a half score of standard lexicographers, 
as well as a still greater number of passages 
from the fathers, many of whom were native 
Greeks, in which baptizo is used in connec- 
tions where it could not possibly mean sub- 
mersion. 

All that remains then to Dr. Fuller is, 
what he says, that Mr. Carson says, that 
Mr. Newman says, that Dr. Person said, if 
there is any difference, baptizois a stronger 
word than bapto, to tinge, and means im- 
merse ; that the old heathen classics often 
use it in the sense of immerse; and that a 
dozen authors or more, who never doubted 
or contested the validity of baptism by affu- 
sion, in the way of free etymological illus- 



84 

trations have incidentally remarked that 
baptizo has the signification of immerce. 
And this is the foundation of a system which 
holds the great body of Christ's people to be 
in dangerous error, in a state of disobedience 
to a positive command of their Lord, unfit 
for participation in the holy supper, in a 
state of alienation from the true visible 
church, and in alarmino; danger of eternal 
death ! At such presumption as this we are 
at a loss to determine which is most moved, 
our pity, our indignation or our contempt. 
And if this is being " a Baptist on principle,''^ 
may God have mercy upon those who are 
Baptists " in sectarianism and ligotry P^ 



85 



CHAPTER Vir. 

Bapiizo as used hy the Sepiuagini — Perver- 
sion of the Scriptures — JVaamaii^s Bap- 
tism — Judith'^ s purijication — Baptism from 
defilement hy touching the dead. 

Dr. Fuller thinks that his " disquisition 
thus far ought to put an end to this contro- 
versy." This is his opinion. But he will 
find men to differ with him. So far from 
his having settled the controversy in favor 
of his sectarian theory, we have demonstrated 
that haptizo has other meanings than sheer 
immersion, and that his assertions on this 
point are mere gratuitous assumptions. 

We now proceed with him to examine the 
use of haptizo in the Septuagint, or Greek 
version of the Old Testament and Apocry- 
pha. 

The first passage we note in which this 
word occurs, is Isaiah, 21 : 4. Dr. Fuller 
thus gives it, that is to say, his version of 
ii ; "The prophet, foreseeing the capture of 
Babylon and the subjugation of the empire 
8* 



86 

by the Medes and Persians, says, ^ My heart 
pants and iniquity sinks (baptizes) me ;' " p. 
49. Dr. Fuller is horrified at the evident 
slips of the pen made by Mr. Lape in quoting 
from an apocryphal book, under the head of 
^' Instances from the classic Greek of the 
Old Testament,'' and in mistaking a Greek 
word. He indeed exculpates Mr. Lape from 
"designed perversion of God's Word ;" but 
holds him ^'inexcusable" for his ''entire ig- 
norance." What then shall be said of Dr. 
Fuller when we open the Bible and find that 
the passage reads, not " iniquity sinks me," 

but '' FEARFULNESS AFFRIGHTED ME !" HaS 

he designedly or ignoranily put words in the 
prophet's lips which the prophet never ut- 
tered ? Dr. Alexander renders the original 
Hebrew, " Horror appals me." See his 
Commentary on this verse. Scott saysj 
*' The prophet here seems to personate Bel- 
shazzar on the night when Babylon was 
taken." See his Commentary. The pas- 
sage evidently points to the scene described 
by Daniel, 5; 1, 6, '' Belshazzar, the king, 
made a great feast to a thousand of his lords 



87 

and drank wine before the thousand. . . 
And they brought the golden vessels that 
were taken out of the temple of the house of 
God, which was at Jerusalem, and the king 
and his princes, his wives and his concu- 
bines, drank in them. . In the same hour 
came forth fingers of a man's hand and wrote 
over against the candlestick upon the plaster 
of the wall of the king's palace ; and the 
king saw the part of the hand that wrote. 
Then the king^s countenance was changed and 
his thoughts troubled himf so that the joints of 
his loins were loosed and his knees smote one 
against another,'^ Accordingly Lowth para- 
phrases the passage as if Belshazzar were 
saying to himself, " When I thought to be at 
ease and to have some respite from trouble 
and anxiety, then the fearful apprehensiojis 
of God^s judgments seized m^." See his 
Commentary. And all this fright, appaling 
horror, trembling, and seizure of the soul 
with fearful apprehension of God's judg- 
ments, is signified in the version of the sev- 
enty, which is honored and dignified by being 
quoted by Christ himself and his inspired 



apostles, by the one word baptizei. Does it 
then mean " a total immersion and nothing 
else ?" How can any man make immersion 
out of it in this case ? 

The next place in the Septuagint in which 
we find this word is 2 Kings, 5 : 14, '' Then 
he (Naaman) went down and dipped (ebap- 
tisato) himself seven times in Jordan, accord- 
ing to the saying of the man of God,^' Dr. 
Fuller lays great stress upon this passage, 
and is amazed that any '^candid man" can 
any longer doubt with this instance before 
* him. He refers to it on all occasions and 
evidently regards it as his strongest point. 
Let us then look at it with care. 

It will be observed that the record says 
that Naaman " baptized himself according 
to the saying of the man of GodJ' We must 
then ascertain what that saying was and in- 
terpret the ehaptisato according to the sense 
of the terms used in the command of which 
the baptism wsis the fulfilment. This is 
plain common sense, that if Naaman haptized 
himseU according to the saying of the man of 
God, that '^saying of the man of God" must 



89 

contain the true sense in which the word 
baptize is used. 

Going back then a few verses, we read 
that " Elisha sent a messenger unto him, 
saying, Go and wash (lousai) in Jordan 
seven times, . and thou shalt he dean^'^^ 
(katharisihase,) But Naaman was wroth, 
and went away and said, '' Behold, 1 thought, 
he will surely come out to me, and stand, 
and call on the name of the Lord his God, 
and strike Ms hand over the place." (Was 
not Naaman's leprosy confined to one partic- 
ular location on his body ?) '' Are not Abana 
and Pharphar, rivers of Damascus better than 
all the waters of Israel ? May I not wash 
(lousomai) in them and be clean ? So he 
turned and went away in a rage. And his 
servants came near and spake unto him and 
said, My father, if the prophet had bid thee 
do some great thing, wouldst thou not have 
done it ? How much rather then, when he 
saiih to thee, Wash (lousai) and be clean ?" 

The saying of the man of God then, ac- 
cording to which Naaman baptized himself, 
was not a command to immerse himself to* 



90 

tally, but to wasli and cleanse himself. The 
Greek words in the command are not hapo 
and haptizo, but louo and katharizo. And 
according to Dr. Fuller's own argument, on 
page 31, we can demonstrate that the proph- 
et's bidding had no sort of reference to im- 
mersion. What does Dr. Fuller say ? how 
does he reason ? " Jesus could have been 
at no loss for a word clearly to express his 
meaning. Did he intend sprinkling ? The 
word was rantizo. Did he require pouring? 
The word was keo. If wash, nipto, (which, 
by the way, according to Dr. Fuller's own 
authority on page 21, means to wet or wash 
only the hands.) If bathe, Zomo. If immerse 
or dye, hapto. If immerse and nothing else, 
the word was hapiizo. We argue then, upon 
Dr. Fuller's own ground, if Elisha intended 
Naaman to immerse himself totally and noth- 
ing else, the word to express it was baptize. 
But the prophet, according to the seventy, 
did not use the v^ord baptize, but louo and 
katharizo. Therefore it inevitably follows, 
from Dr. Fuller's own showing, that the 
prophet did not intend that Naaman should 



91 

immerse himself. And if Elisha did not 
direct Naaman to immerse himself, and 
Naaman's baptism was according to Elisha's 
direction, the seventy have either used the 
word baptizo wrongly or it does not mean 
immersion and nothing else. We cannot 
conceive how Dr. Fuller, with all his dex- 
terity and cunning, is to extricate himself 
from this dilemma. 

But we do not stop with this. We insist 
that louo and katharizo in the prophet's com- 
mand must give the sense of haptizo, which 
describes the act of Naaman in complying 
with the command ; for it is expressly de- 
clared that he '' baptized himself according 

TO THE SAYING OF THE MAN OF GoD." There 

can be no dispute about the fact that katha- 
rizo means simply to cleanse, especially in the 
legal sense of purification, which was for the 
most part performed by sprinkling or pouring 
water over the subject. And louo evidently 
means nearly the same thing. It is used 
eight times in the New Testament, and in no 
one instance does it convey any other mean- 
ing than that of cleanse or purify. In Titus 



92 

8 i 5, it denotes the work of God^s Holy Spirit 
in purifying and renewing the heart. In 
Acts 16 : 33, it denotes the act of moistening 
and cleansing wounds inflicted by stripes. 
In Rev. 1 : 5, it denotes the cleansing of the 
sinner's conscience by the blood of Christ. 
Porphyry uses it to denote the purification of 
maidens about to be married, by sprinkling 
them with water brought in pitchers for the 
purpose; and Basil uses it to denote the pu- 
rification of a sick man by sprinkling with 
water, anointing with oil and invoking upon 
him the Holy Ghost. If then the command 
was simply to wash, cleanse or purify in 
Jordan's waters, and if haptizo denotes the 
fulfilment of that command, the point is set- 
tled, that baptizo in this case means nothing 
more (and cannot be assigned any other 
sense) than simply to wash, cleanse or purify. 
We challenge Dr. Fuller to confine himself 
to this instance and make any thing else out 
of it. 

How Naaman executed the prophet's com- 
mand is of no importance. He may have 
gone into the stream of Jordan and literally 



93 

dipped the affected parts which he expected 
the man of God to touch, or he may have sat 
down to perform the enjoined ablution upon 
the shore ; but if he even went in and totally 
immersed himself seven times, it does not 
alter the case. There are many ways of 
washing ; and it was still a baptism, not be- 
cause it was an immersion, but because it 
was a 7vasliing; that having been the only 
idea in the prophet's mind, and the only idea 
in the mind of the historian when he said 
that Naaman did according to the prophet's 
saying. 

And we are also fully borne out in this 
view by other versions of the Bible. The 
old Latin version of Jerome, made more than 
fourteen hundred years ago, has lavo where 
the seventy have hapiizo; a word which 
means simply to wash, without prescribing 
the mode, and where it takes in any allusion 
to mode, that mode is to besprinkle. It 
also has the judicial sense of expiate and 
dear. A total immersion is quite outside of 
its common scope. 

The German Bible, pronounced one of the 
9 



94 

best translations that have ever been madej 
has taiifen. If Luther had thought that 
Naaman's baptism was a total immersion, 
he certainly would have used the word ver^ 
senken, or uniertauchen. 

The Doway Bible says, " He went down 
and WASHED in the Jordan." And the Gov 
erdale Bible, the Geneva Bible and Mat- 
thew's Bible, all have ^^wasJied^^ instead of 
dipped. 

Now, putting all these things together, are 
we not fully authorized to say, that so far as 
baptizo applies to the cleansing of Naaman, 
it no more means *'a total immersion and 
nothing else^^ than it means sprinkling and 
nothing else. The fact is, it means neither ; 
but simply a cleansing or purification. This 
is all that the prophet told him to do; and 
inspired authority tells us that he did "ac- 
cording to the saying of the man of God." 

A third passage in the Septuagint in which 
baptizo occurs is Judith 12 : 7, where it 
is said of that heroic woman that "she v/ent 
out in the night into the valley of Bethulia 
and washed [ebaptizeto) herself in a fountain 



95 

(paga — spring) of water by the camp. And 
when she came out, (Do way version, lohen 
she came up,) she besought the Lord God of 
Israel to direct her way." What does this 
mean? Dr. Fuller says, " She is purifying 
herself for a great and glorious deed ;" p. 39. 
Exactly so ; and that is precisely the mean- 
ing of the word in this text. The Doway 
and king James' versions both render it wash. 
The German version has it wusch sich. And 
it means nothing more nor less than a cere- 
monial cleansing. The heroine is contem- 
plating the deliverance of her country from 
a ruthless invader. She wishes to secure 
the help of Israel's God. And just as in the 
case of Telemachus, with waters from the 
hoary sea shed over his hands, 

*' The royal suppliant to Minerva prayed," 
so she went fasting to the Bethulian spring 
to purify herself with its untainted waters, 
fresh from their source, the more acceptably 
to come before her God. All idea of immer- 
sion in the spring is quite out of the question. 
But in order to make the case yield to his 
tottering cause, Dr. Fuller says that this pu- 



96 

rification was performed " in a sequestered 
valley." Not so; it was performed at a 
spring " hy the camp ;^^ or as it is still strong- 
er in the Greek, *^ in the camf^ — en ta far- 
emhola. He says that it was done in the pri- 
vacy of the " night.'' Not so ; the word nux 
also means evening. The German version 
has it abends. And the account stating what 
occurred after the purification had been per- 
formed, says expressly, in the 9th verse, '^So 
she came in cleany and remained in the tent, 
until she did eat her meat at evening." 
And are we to be told, that a beautiful and 
chaste woman like Judith went out among 
a vast army of rude and unoccupied soldiers 
in the evening before supper-time, and com- 
pletely immersed herself in an open and pub- 
lic spring, and that for three successive days? 
Let the thinking judge of the probability of 
such a story ! Dr. Arnald, in his comment- 
ary on this passage, expresses the greatest 
astonishment that a woman of such beauty 
could move at all among such a camp with- 
out encountering insult and violence. What 
then would her situation have been if we add 



97 

the bathing of her naked person by immer- 
sion at nightfall in a spring to which the sol- 
diers doubtless came to quench their thirst! 
The thing cannot be ; and so baptizo cannot 
here mean to immerse and nothing else. 

But Dr. Fuller can't give it up. The pas- 
sage must be made to give bapiizo the mean- 
ing of immerse, even though he should have 
to interpolate the record. And we here, pub- 
licly, boldly, and with a full understanding 
of what we are about, charge interpolation 
upon him. Whether he has done it igno- 
rantly or intentionally is not for us to decide. 

On page 40 of his book he positively as- 
serts, that "As if to leave no doubt, it is eX' 
pressly said that she came out of the wa- 
TER." He gives quotation marks and all, to 
have us believe that he has literally trans- 
ferred these words from the record to his 
pages. But we utterly, peremptorily, and 
without qualification, deny that there is any 
thing any where in this account, either in 
Hebrew, in Greek, in Latin, in German or 
in English that says aught about coming out 
of " the water^ The only thing that affords 
9* 



even the remotest hint in that direction lies 
in the English phrase ^'and when she came 
out she besought the Lord." But a theory 
which predicates this coming out, of a com- 
ing out of tlie water, cannot stand for a mo- 
ment. It is nowhere said that she ever went 
into the water, and it is unnaturally violent 
and altogether gratuitous to say that her com- 
ing out means a coming " out of the water.^'^ 
What she came out of was of course what 
she went into; and it is expressly said that 
she '-went into the valley of BethnJia.'^ Her 
coming out was therefore a coming out of 
" the valley of Bethulia." 

The Vulgate has et ut ascendehat — and as 
she loent up, or as soon as she went up — she 
prayed. The allusion cannot be to anything 
but her going up to her tent. 

The Septuagint has kai hos anehcB, edeeio, 
AnehcB is one form of the same word used by 
Xenophon to deriOie a military expedition — 
certainly a very different thirig from an 
emersion from a plunge in the water. It sig- 
nifies a going up from one place to another. 
It is used in the New Testament to denote 



99 

Christ's going up to Jerusalem, going up into 
the mountain to pray, going up into the tem- 
ple ; the going up of the disciples to the feast ; 
Peter's going up upon the housetop, and so 
on. Homer uses it again and again to denote 
the act of penetrating into the interior of a 
country, and of advancing towards a capital. 
And we avow that before any man can find 
emersion in it he will first have to put it there. 
Its plainest and primary meaning is, the go- 
ing up from one place to another; and as 
used in the passage before us, it can mean 
nothing more nor less than the going up of 
Judith from the fountain where she purified 
herself to the tent in which she reposed, in 
the camp of Holofernes. 

And the German version, if possible, is 
still more conclusive. It cuts off even the 
last lingering shadow of possibility that the 
phrase might perhaps refer to a coming out 
of the water. It renders it all by the adverb 
darnacli — afterioards. Having purified her- 
self at the fountain ** by the camp, after- 
wards,'^^ i. e. after her purification had been 
completed, and she was again on her way to 



100 

her allotted place, '-afterwards she prayed to 
the Lord." The thing is too plain to adniit 
of further illustration. 

The fourth and only remaining passage 
fron^ the Septuagint to be examined, in which 
baptizo occurs, is Ecclesiasticus 34 : 25. 
" He that washetli {haptizomenos) himself af- 
ter the touching of a dead body, if he touch 
it again what availeth his washing," {loutro.) 

Here we have two different words refer- 
ring to precisely the same thing; and which, 
so far as this text is concerned, are necessa- 
rily exact synonyms of each other. We 
have already proven that louo, one of the 
words here used, denotes the general idea of 
washing in the sense of purification. It is 
therefore a sufficient injunction upon Dr. 
Fuller's theory of the meaning of haptizo to 
know that the seventy here use it as the ex- 
act synonym of louo. For as louo is never 
used to denote " a total immersion and noth- 
ing else," so haptizo cannot mean "a total 
immersion and nothing else" where it is used 
interchangeably with louo. 

But we go further. The son of Sirach is 



101 

talking about purification from the contami* 
nating touch of a dead body, fie calls that 
purification a haptism. And we now assert 
that the vital, prominent and essential part 
of that purification was performed hy sprink- 
ling and by sprinkling alone. Does any one 
doubt it, let him read the 19th chapter of 
Numbers, where God himself lays down the 
law in this case: "And whosoever toucheth 
one that is slain with the sword in the open 
field, or a dead body, or a bone of a man, or 
a grave, shall be unclean seven days. And 
for an unclean person they shall take of the 
ashes of the burnt heifer of purification for 
sin, and running water shall be put thereto 
in a vessel, and a clean person shall take 
hyssop and dip it in the water and sprinkle 
IT upon him that toucheth a lone, or one slain^ 
or one dead, or a grave, and the clean per- 
son shall SPRINKLE uj)on the unclean on the 
third day and on the seventh day.'' This is 
the statute of God for the purification of a 
man defiled by touching the dead, and the 
whole of it. The succeeding verses quoted 
by Dr. Fuller about washing clothes and 



102 

bathing, refer to the clean person who does 
the sprinkling, and not to the one defiled for 
whom the sprinkling was done. Let the 
reader compare the I9ih with the 21st verse, 
where this bathing is expressly referred to 
the administrator and not to the subject, and 
he will see the truth of our statement. Jo- 
sephus, in a professed and minute descrip- 
tion of this rite, (Ant. B. 4, c. 4, sec. 6,) 
says nothing about washing or bathing as a 
part of it. Philo, in a similar passage, 
speaks only of sprirfkling. Or if any still 
doubt, we bring the testimony of Paul, who 
says expressly that it was the ashes of an 
heifer sprinkling the unclean that sanctified 
to the 'purification of the flesh, Heb, 9 :13. 

Here then is a purification from which 
every thing like immersion is utterly exclud- 
ed. And this particular purification the son 
of Sirach, according to the seventy, denotes 
by the word haptizo! 

The demonstration is therefore complete, 
that haptfzOy as used in the Septuagint, does 
not denote " a total immersion and nothing 
else,'^ but has assigned to it that nobler and 



103 

higher sense for which it was chosen to de- 
signate the foundation ordinance of Christian- 
ity — the sense oi purification. 

How reniarkable, that the very moment 
we begin to touch upon ground, even though 
but remotely connected with Christianity, the 
word that is always used to denote the ordi- 
nance of baptism at once assumes a settled 
religious sense, from which, when applied to 
this sacrament, as we shall see, it never de- 
parts ! 



104 



CHAPTER Vlir. 

Bapto in the Septuagint- — in the old classics^-'^ 
in the JVeiu Testament — Dr, Fuller an^ 
swered on his own premises— Post- Scripts 

We have thus far established, from the 
lexicographers, from the fathers and from 
the Septuagint, that baptizo has other mean* 
ings than the exclusive signification of " a 
total immersion." We desire now, before 
leaving the Septuagint, to make some re- 
marks upon the word hapto, the root from 
which baptizo is formed. 

Dr. Fuller tells us that " we have nothing 
to do with haptoJ^ And yet, on the very 
§ame page, he sets out to build an argument 
upon it to prove that haptizo " denotes a total 
immersion and has no other meaning." He 
has therefore himself opened this field, and 
we cheerfully enter it, to show that upon his 
oivn principles baptizo has other meanings 
than to immerse* 

He tells us that *^ in the Greek language 



105 

the addition of zo enforces the primitive 
verb;" that ^* it imparts a peculiar signifi- 
cancy and seems generally to denote the 
transferring to another, or performing upon 
another, the thing designated ;" p. 12. We 
have shown, in chapter third, that in this 
he is mistaken ; that the addition of zo is a 
mere provincial variation of the original 
word, without a variation of the sense, or 
that it denotes something only approximative 
to the thing signified in the primitive word. 
We would therefore be rightfully entitled to 
proceed upon these established premises in 
the argument which we are about to submit; 
but we are willing here to surrender this 
right and to give him all the advantages of 
his untenable positions. We can afford to 
be generous in such a cause. For the pur- 
pose of testing his logic, and be it under- 
stood, for this alone, we now grant him that 
*' the addition of zo enforces the primitive 
verb." He certainly will not contend, how- 
ever, that the addition of zo enforces a mean- 
ing which is not in the primitive verb. The 
meaning must be there before zo can enforce 
10 



106 

it. The thing must be signified before zo 
can denote its transferment or performance 
upon another. This is one of the plainest 
axioms of common sense, that no man can 
bring out of a thing what it does not contain. 
If then we can show clear and unmistakable 
instances in which hapto does not and from 
the nature of things cannot mean immersion, 
of course no additions of zo can inspire it 
with this signification ; and therefore baptizo 
does not always mean to immerse and noth- 
ing else. 

Is there any evidence then of the use of 
hapto where immersion cannot be its mean- 
ing ? We have just been referring to the 
Septuagint ; we will therefore take it up 
first. 

In Daniel 4 : 33, (we give the reference 
as in the English Bible,) it is written, " And 
he (Nebuchadnezzar) was driven from men 
and did eat grass as oxen, and his body was 
wet (ehaphse) with the dew of heaven.^' Also 
in Daniel 5 : 21, " And his heart was made 
like the beasts and his dwelling was with 
the wild asses ; they fed him with grass like 



107 X 

oxen and his body was wet (ehapJise) with 
the dew of heaven." Here is hapto in two 
instances, in both of which it signifies the 
gentle moistening of an exposed body by the 
falling of the dew. Apply zo then, after 
the fashion of Dr. Fuller's examples : hapto, 
to wet with falling dew ; haptizo, to make 
one wet with falling dew. Is the making of 
one wet with falling dew a total immersion 
and nothing else ? 

In Leviticus, 14 : 4, 6, we have these 
words, " Then shall the priest command to 
take for him that is to be cleansed two birds 
alive and clean, and cedar wood, and scar- 
let, and hyssop ; and the priest shall com- 
mand that one of the birds he killed in an 
earthen vessel, over running water. As for 
the living bird, he shall take it, and the cedar 
wood, and the scarlet, and the hyssop, and 
shall dip (bapsei) them and the living bird in 
the blood of the bird that was killed. ^^ Is 
there any possibility of a total immersion in 
this case ? How can you immerse a living 
bird, cedar v/ood, scarlet and hyssop in the 
blood of a single bird ? Add zo then and 



108 

enforce the meaning of the prinnitive verb, 
and yet hbw far are you from every thing 
like immersion ? 

Dr. Fuller is evidently troubled with this 
passage, and disposes of it in the same rep- 
rehensible method in which he disposed of 
Isaiah's fright and Judith's purification. We 
regret extremely to be compelled to expose 
such uncandid and inexcusable procedure in 
a professed Christian minister. An honest 
man, however, preferring serious charges 
against the great body of the Christian 
Church, ought certainly to be held to treat 
at least the inspired record with reverence 
and fidelity. Dr. Fuller says that he " trem- 
bles when he remembers the language of 
God as to him who adds to or takes from the 
words of the Bible;" p. 51. Why did he 
then forget that language when he came to 
comment upon the passage which we have 
just quoted from Leviticus ? On page 45, 
under express pretensions of being honest 
where he charges that others were not, he 
records these words: ^'If my readers will 
refer to the chapter (quoted above) they will 



109 

see ihsit water was to he taken from a running 
stream in some vessel^ and into this water the 
hlood of the bird was to fall. Into this vessel 
the clipping was to be performed." Oh, Dr. 
Fuller ! Dr. Fuller ! how could you give 
such solemn utterance to such barefaced and 
downright untruth ? Your effort to hide it 
under a reference to verses 50, 51, will not 
avail. Those verses refer to the cleansing 
of a house; the case in point refers to the 
cleansing of a man. And even in those 
verses you know as well as we do that there 
is not one word said about taking water from 
a running stream in a vessel, or of dropping 
the blood of the slain bird in '' a vessel of 
running water, ^^"^ What a resort to carry a 
narrow sectarian cause ! '^ How awful a 
thing thus to misguide men !" We ask no 
man to take our statements without exam- 
ination. We challenge the strictest investi- 
gation. We invite every reader to take the 
Bible, we care not what version, and to com- 
pare the 45th page of "Fuller on Baptism 

* We have heard of earilien, wooden and 'brazen vessels, 
but what ^^ vessels of running water'^ are, remains for Dr. 
Fuller to explain. 

10* 



110 

and the Terms of Communion," 3d edition, 
1S54, (the very edition which "Justice" calls 
'Hlie revised,'*^) with the 14th chapter of Le- 
viticus, and convince himself that we are 
setting forth the truth. No, no, no; there 
is no -'vessel of running water," or any 
other kind of water, in the case. The 
"earthen vessel" and the dying bird in it 
were only to be held " over running wat- 
er." The living bird, and the cedar wood, 
and the scarlet, and the hyssop, all were to 
be dipped in the blood of one slain Urd^ and 
in that blood unmingled with any thing else. 
That dipping is denoted by the word lapto. 
And you may add zos by the cart-load to 
enforce the meaning of the primitive verb, 
and you will still be as far from "a total 
immersion" as the equator is from the poles. 
This then is the way in which Dr. Fuller 
has '^a^cer^amec?" that "baptizo signifies to 
immerse and has no other meanin-g," and 
that the great body of the Church is in a . 
state of positive disobedience to Christ's ex- 
plicit command, unfit to be admitted to the 
Lord's table and without a well-founded 
hope of heaven ! Is it not too bad ? 



Ill 

In Joshua 3 : 15, we have this record; 
*^And as they that bare the ark were come 
unto Jordan, and the feet of the priests that 
bare the ark were dipped ( ehaphsesan ) in the 
brim of the water^ . . the waters which 
came down from above stood and rose up 
upon an heap, . . and the priests that 
bare the ark of the covenant of the Lord 
stood firm on dry ground in the midst of Jor- 
dan, and all the Israelites passed over on dry 
ground.^^ Here the mere touching of the 
priests' feet *Hn the hrim^^ of Jordan's out- 
spread waters, and from which touch those 
waters instantly shrank away, so as to leave 
dry ground from shore to shore, is denoted 
by hapto. Apply zo then and enforce the 
meaning; but where is the total immersion? 

In 1 Samuel 14 : 27, Jonathan " put forth 
the end of the rod that was in his hsind and 
dipped (ehapsen) it in an honey-comh,^^ In 
Deuteronomy 33 : 24, Moses prays for Ash- 
er, " and let him dip (hapsei) his foot in oilJ^ 
In neither of these instances is a total im- 
mersion signified ; neither will the enforce- 
ment of the meaning by the addition of zo 
make it a total immersion. 



112 

So much then for the Septuagint, Dr. 
Fuller is particularly fond of illustrations 
from the heathen classics. All his principal 
quotaiions to prove that baptizo means to 
immerse are drawn from this source. As 
we all admit that bapto and baptizo often do 
mean to immerse, especially in the writings 
of the old heathen Greeks, we have not 
thought it worth while to test the accuracy 
of those quotations. But as that is the great 
store-house of his ammunition, we will now 
take a glance in that direction, to see wheth- 
er we cannot show upon his own avowed 
principles that baptizo does not always sig- 
nify a total immersion. 

In Arrian's ^'History of Alexander the 
Great " we have this sentence : '- Nearchus 
relates that the Indians dye {hapto7itai) their 
beards,^' Here all idea of immersion is 
certainly excluded ; and all the intensity 
which the addition of a thousand zos can 
give to bapto in this sentence cannot make it 
mean immersion. 

Some where in Hypocrates, (we are not 
very particular about references^ as we have 



113 

high Baptist authority for these passages,) 
some where in Hypocrates we have this re- 
mark : *'When it drops upon (he garments 
they are (haptelai) dyed.^^ Dr. Fuller says 
that bapto means to dye because dyeing is by 
immersion;^^ p. 33. In this passage he is 
flatly contradicted, as the dyeing is by drop- 
ping. There is no immersion about it, and 
the addition of zo cannot make it immersion 
by enforcing the meaning of the primitive 
verb. 

In the third book of " The Battle of the 
Frogs and Mice " we have an account of the 
slaughter of a mouse and of the effect of his 
blood upon the lake in which the frogs dwelt. 
We give Pope's translation: 

*' Gasping he rolls; a purple stream. of blood 
Distains {ebapteto) the surface of the silver flood." 

Would Dr. Fuller have us believe that the 
blood of a mouse, great and brave as that 
mouse * was, totally immersed the lake ? We 
quote from his own authority, and Baptist 
authority at that, *^ To suppose that there is 

* C. Taylor thinks Crambophagus, a frog, and not a mouse. 
Be that as it may, it will not augment the supply of blood. 



114 

here any extravagant allusion to the literal 
immersion or dipping of a lake is a monstrous 
perversion of taste. (So we would think.) 
The lake is said to be dyed, not dipped. 
There is in the word no reference to mode. 
What a monstrous paradox in rhetoric is the 
figuring of the dipping of a lake in the blood 
of a mouse ! . . Never was there such a 
figure. The lake is not said to be dipped in 
iloodf but to be dyed with blood.'' Carson 
on Baptism, p. 67. Very well said, and 
very much to our purpose. Bapto in this 
case then means only to stain or color slight- 
ly, without reference to mode; and how can 
the enforcement of this meaning give us a 
total immersion ? 

But we pass by other instances from the 
classics to refer to a few passages in the 
Nevy Testament. 

In Matthew, 26 : 23, the Saviour says, 
«VHe that dippeih (emhapsas) his hand with 
me in the dish, the same shall betray me." 
Suppose now that the Saviour and his disci- 
ples had before them a large vessel filled 
with liquid food ; for if it was not liquid, all 



115 

possibility of immersion is excluded ; are we 
to suppose that he and Judas both together, 
in. the ordinary course of partaking of a meal, 
totally immersed their hands {taen cheira) in 
it ? The idea is preposterous. Bapto then 
cannot here mean immerse, and neither can 
zo give it such a meaning. 

In Revelation, 19 : 13, John says of Him 
who is faithful and true: ''And he was 
clothed with a vesture dipped {hehammenon) 
in blood." Of course it was not a vesture 
totally immersed in blood. The figure is 
that of a conqueror from the field of battle, 
with his clothing stained with the blood of 
his slain foes. The allusion of the passage 
seems plainly to be to Isaiah, 63 : 2, 3, 
" Wherefore art thou red in thine apparel, 
and thy garments like hifu that treadeth in the 
wine-fat ? I have trodden the wine-press 
alone ; and of the people there was none 
with me ; for I will tread them in mine an- 
ger and trample them in my fury, and their 
blood shall be sprinkled upon my garments, 
and I ivill slain all my raiment, ^^ 

It was the remark of Edwards: *'I will 



• 116 

say thus much of the term hapto, that it is a 
term of such latitude that he who shall at- 
tempt to prove, from its use in various au- 
thors, an absolute and total immersion, will 
find he has undertaken that which he cannot 
finally perform." Have we not made good 
the accuracy of that statement ? Is it not 
established beyond confutation and rational 
controversy, even upon Dr. Fuller's own 
principles — principles arbitrarily manufac- 
tured and laid down to meet the wants of 
this particular case — -that his doctrine, that 
baptizo signifies immerse and nothing else, 
is a mere groundless assumption, to say the 
very least? We certainly have shown, from 
the Septuagint, from the heathen classics and 
from the New Testament, (and we might do 
the same from the Greek fathers,) that hapio 
is used in places where it can by no possi- 
bility mean immersion. According to Dr. 
Fuller's own statements the addition of za 
can do no more than enforce the primitive 
verb, and only has the significancy of trans-, 
ferring to another or performing upon anoth- 
er the thing designated. So that it follows 



117 

upon these grounds, with mathematical cer- 
tainty, that laplo with zo^ or hapiizo^ cannot 
always mean to immerse and nothing else. 
With entire safety we might rest the cause 
of our defence upon this one argument alone. 
Dr. Fuller then has been fairly and com- 
pletely mety — met upon his own ground, — 
refuted upon his own premises. And when 
we come to take advantage of what we have 
established against his doctrine of the force 
of zo in Greek, and argue, as we have a 
right to argue, upon the premises that the 
addition of zo is a mere provincial variation 
of the original verb, without a variation of 
the sense, or that it denotes only an approx- 
imation to the thing signified in the primitive 
word, the conclusion comes with still more 
overwhelming force. For if hapto is thus 
used where the idea of immersion cannot be 
admitted, and the addition of zo, making 
iaptizo, does not alter its force of significa- 
tion, except to weaken and modify it, it is 
as clear as the sun in the heavens that bap^ 
iizo does not and cannot always mean im- 
mert^e and nothing else. 
11 



118 

Ought not Dr. Fuller then to acknowledge 
his mistake and renounce a position which, 
as he alleges, it gives him great pain to 
hold ? When he finds himself in error ought 
he not to retract it ? Has he not bound him- 
self on page 2 to confess the flaw when 
shown to him ? We have now shown him 
flaws in his logic, and flaws in his Greek 
criticisms, and flaws on the score of honest 
dealing with the Scriptures; and we call 
upon him to redeem his promise. Will he 
do it ? Or will he still persist to put the 
truthless assertions of men for the high com- 
mand of God ? Will he continue to preach 
and write that where there is no immersion 
there is no baptism — no proper church — no 
right to the Holy Supper, and no sure prom- 
ise of eternal life ? Time will show. 

POST-SCRIPT. 

We feel constrained here to retard the 
progress of the reader with another episode. 
After the first several chapters of our Re- 
view had gone before the public, an effort 
was made through the Baptist press of Balti- 



119 

more, to break the force of our articles and 
to forestall public judgment by a flippant 
and wholesale denunciation of our competen- 
cy, honesty, logic, learning, trustworthiness, 
and temper. The writer of that denuncia- 
tion, (most likely Dr. Fuller himself,) makes 
out sundry charges against us to the effect, 
and on the grounds, as follows : — 

1. That we are unfair^ because we began 
our Review with the second and not the 
^hird edition of Dr. Fuller's book, although 
we had given to the public a full statement 
of the facts in the case. See page 44. 

2. That our temper is reprehensible, for- 
sooth, because he alleges it is ^'impossible 
for Pedobaptists ever to touch this question, 
without becoming nervously violent !" 

3. That we are totally ignorant, produ- 
cing nothing which ^'can impose on a child," 
except, *'a passage from Clement," which, 
he tells us, *'was promptly exposed in Bos- 
ton as soon as Dr. Beecher ventured it." — i 
How "exposed ?" By proving the passage 
spurious ? No. By what process ? By 
alleging that the words E;pi Koitae, (by 



120 

Hervetus and Dr. Beecher translated on a 
COUCH, and which adnait of no other intelli- 
gible translation,) " do not mean uj[fon a 
couch at dinner, but on rising from bed after 
sleeping together," and that Archbishop 
Potter sustains this rendering ! 

4. That we are guilty of absolute falsiji* 
cation, when we say that Schrevelius gives 
Ho Besjprinkle^'^'^ as a naeaning of Baptizo, 
because Schrevelius gave it "m Latin and 
not in English !' (By turning to page 55, 
the reader will see that we gave the Latin 
along with the English,) and because, as 
our assailant alleges, " no decent lexicog- 
rapher ever gave such a definition (as 
besprinkle) to Baptizo !" 

5. That we are traitorous to Luther, 
because he says "The term Baptism is a 
Greek word, which may be rendered into 
Latin by mersio /" Aad, 

6. That we are warring against our own 
distinguished theologians, because Storr and 
Flatt, in Dr. Schmucker's translation of 
their Biblical Theology, are represented as 
saying that "the disciples of our Lord un- 



121 

derstood his command as enjoining immer- 



sion 



f '^ 



To these charges and specifications we 
made the following reference in a Post- 
Script to one of our articles : 

"Our Review seems to be creating ^'no 
small sfir^' among those of whose views and 
logic we have ventured to speak. '*Jw5- 
tice^^ is ryled that we did not undertake to 
review an edition of Dr. Fuller's book which 
did not exist when we undertook this busi- 
ness ! A Baptist paper in Baltimore, (char- 
acteristically called " The True Union,'' 
whilst scrupulously devoted to the veriest 
sectarianism,) hastes to inform its readers, 
before hearing one third of what we have to 
say, that we are ^^ evidently verdant,^' ^^ner- 
vously violentf^' " ignorant copyists of ex- 
ploded passages from Dr. Beecher," "know 
nothing about it," state lohat " is absolutely 
false,^^ "make false statements of the Lexi- 
cons," "scarce deserve even a passing no- 
tice," and various other things equally 
"amiable in defence of error!" We hope 
these GENTLEMEN wiU try to make themselves 
IP 



122 

easy until our review has been completed. 
They will have ample room, and a better 
opportunity to understand and to answer it, 
when once they have seen it. We assure 
ihem that none of these side-flings will divert 
us from our fixed purpose, to defend the great 
body of the fold of Jesus from the assault 
which Dr. Fuller has made upon our Chris* 
tianity and religious hope. We have hold 
of the champion of these True Unionists ; 
and why should we let him go to pursue a 
few mosquitoes ? But if these side-lings 
cannot restrain themselves until we are done 
with Dr. Fuller, let them exercise mean- 
while in the following catechism : 

1. Did not Clement write the passage we 
gave from him ? 

2. Are the other thirteen passages spuri- 
ous or genuine ? 

3. Who exploded Dr. Beecher's unan- 
swerable book on Baptism? 

4. Did not the Jews sleep on the same 
beds or couches on which they reclined to 
eat? 

5. Where does epi koiise — on a couch — 



123 

ever mean ^^ after rising from the led in the 
morning,^^ or any thing like it ? 

6. Did we not give Schrevelius' definition 
in Latin, mergo, ahluo, lavo ? 

7. Does lavo never mean '' to besprinkle .^" 

8. Are Scapula, Parkhurst, Schrevelius 
and Passovv ^^ decent legicographers ?" 

9. Did Luther, Storr, Flatt or Schmucker 
ever express themselves dissatisfied with the 
validity of their own baptism, because it was 
not performed by immersion ? 

10. Were Luther, Melancthon, Knox and 
their coadjutors true Christians? 

IL If they were true Christians, why 
would Baptists exclude them or their pious 
followers from the Lord's Supper? 

12. Can that be a safe Church which 
refuses communion with Christ's people ? 



124 



CHAPTER IX. 

An inquiry into the nature of ilie lustrations 
and purifications enjoined in the Mosaic 
laio — JVb immersions required — Bathing — 

Sprinkling specifically prescribed £.11 

these various purifications and catharisms 

• called Baptisms in the JYew Testament. 

We hope that the reader will not become 
impatient under the unavoidable tediousness 
of our Review. Dr. Fuller has marked out 
a wide field and we are pledged to traverse 
it with him. It is also much easier to make 
assertions than to exhibit the proofs of their 
truth or falseness. The Deity of Christ may- 
be denied in a single sentence ; but to give 
expression to all the mighty evidences upon 
which this central truth of the gospel rests 
would require a volume. A statement made 
in a few words may abound with error ; but 
to refute it and set it in its true light, time 
and toil and space are indispensable. 

We are now about to institute an inquiry 



125 

into the use of bapiizo and its congnate words 
in the New Testannent, to see whether they 
always mean immerse and nothing else. 
But before entering directly upon this de- 
partment of our investigation^ we desire to 
raise and explain a preliminary question, 
which enters into it very deeply, and by a 
proper understanding of which we will so 
clear our way as to be less subject to inter- 
ruptions. 

Most of the passages in the New Testa- 
ment in which baptize occurs, without refer- 
ence to John's baptism or to the Christian 
sacrament, refer to the purifications and 
lustrations enjoined in the law of Moses. 
It therefore becomes exceedingly import- 
ant to know exactly what those purifying 
ordinances of Moses were ; for it is by the 
character of those Jewish rites that we are 
to determine the general signification of the 
words which the writers of the New Testa- 
ment employ to designate them. If they 
were certainly and clearly nothing but total 
immersions, then the word baptizo, when used 
by the inspired penman to designate them, 



126 

must mean a total immersion and noth- 
ing else ; and so, on the other hand, if they 
were simple expiations or legal purifications, 
most of which were to be performed by 
sprinkling, and the rest by simple washing 
or bathing, without reference to mode, then 
baptizo, when used to designate them, must 
take the general scope of purification as its 
great and leading idea, without being limited 
to sprinkling, perfusion, hand-washing or 
immersing, but comprehending all these 
modes. 

What then is the fact with reference to 
this matter ? Dr. Fuller no where fairly 
meets this inquiry. He proceeds as if it 
were a thing entirely settled and universally 
agreed, that all the purifications of the Mo- 
saic law, designated in the New Testament 
by haptizo and hapiismos^ were total immer- 
sions and nothing else. Here and there, as 
occasion seems to demand and where noth- 
ing else would save his cause, he throws in 
a quotation or two from authors who had 
before them a very different subject of in- 
quiry, and some of them from books which 



127 

we fear he never saw, all to leave the im- 
pression upon his reader's mind that all these 
legal baptisms were clearly, decidedly and 
on all hands admitted to be nothing but total 
immersions ! 

We propose then to brush away these cob- 
webs of a perverted erudition ; and in doing 
so, we will go at once to the high, pure and 
infallible authority of God's own word, leav- 
ing Dr. Fuller with Maimonides and the 
Targums, groping his way amid the tradi- 
tions of the elders, for the sake of which he 
is not the first to set aside the commandment 
of God. We deny, and we challenge the 
production of scriptural proof to the contrary, 
that there is, any where in the Mosaic rit- 
ual, any law enjoining upon the Jews the 
necessity of totally immersing themselves* In 
all the five books of Moses, so far as we have 
learned, the Hebrew word for immerse (tha- 
hal) is not used in one single instance where 
the washing and purification of persons is 
enjoined, nor any other word of correspond- 
ing import. So far as we have been able to 
examine, all these lustrations of men, with- 



128 

out even one exception, are enjoined by the 
word rahatz, which signifies to wash or puri- 
fy^ without reference to mode. 

This word rahatz is rendered in our 
English Bible by the word wash, sometimes 
haihe» Dr. Fuller admits and contends that 
the command to wash is not a command either 
to sprinkle, pour or dip; that "it is a com- 
mand to wash and nothing else ; and that 
*' washing is more than, and may be performed 
without, either sprinkling, or pouring, or dip- 
ping ;^^ p. 15. We argue then, as these 
Levitical baptisms were mere washings and 
nothing else, so far as God's injunction goeSj 
they were not immersions, any more than 
sprinklings or any other special mode of 
purifying with water. 

The word hathe, which occurs in a few 
cases in the English version of these laws 
of Levitical purifications, might at first seem 
to indicate that they were to be performed 
by immersion. But in the original the word 
is always rahatz, the same that is rendered 
wash. Neither does bathe necessarily con- 
vey the idea of immersion. It is from the 



129 

Saxon halJdan, which means simply to wash 
It contains no indication of mode. We may 
bathe by sprinkling, rubbing or suffusion, as 
well as by plunging. We have many more 
shower-baths and sponge-baths than plunge- 
baths. To be bathed in tears certainly does 
not mean totally immersed in tears. To 
bathe a wound is not to immerse it, but to 
moisten it with lotion or to wash it. 

Now we assert that if any of these Leviti- 
cal lustrations were total immersions and 
nothing else, that fact must be found in the 
Hebrew word rahatz ; for this is the only 
word by which they are signified in all of 
those cases where the express mode of the 
purification is not given. This word is 
usually rendered loash in the English Bible. 
" How much of an ablution is properly im- 
plied by the term," Professor Bush remarks, 
^'it is difficult to say. That it does not indi- 
cate a complete immersion of the body in 
water would seem evident from the fact that 
we read of no provision being made for such 
a rite, either in the holy place or in the court 
of the tabernacle.*' In the Septuagint it is 
12 



130 

sometimes rendered louo^ which, as we have 
seen, means simply to cleanse or wash ; 
sometimes by ni'pto, which means hand-wash- 
ing, and sometimes by pluno, which has only 
the general signification of wash, rinse or 
wet. None of these words prescribe mode, 
and no more mean to immerse than they 
mean to pour upon, or to sprinkle, or to ap- 
ply water in any other manner for the pur- 
pose of cleansing. 

To obtain a clear conception of the mean- 
ing and scope of rahatz, and to see how far 
it is from denoting immersion and nothing 
else, let the reader examine the following 
passages, in which it is used : 

" Let a little water, I pray you, be fetched, 
and wash (rahatz) your feet;" Gen. 18; 4. 

"And he entered into his chamber and 
wept there, and he washed (rahatz) his face 
and went out ;" Gen. 43 : 30, 31. 

" And thou shalt cut the ram in pieces and 
wash (rahatz) the inwards of him;" Exodus 
29:17. 

" I will loash (rahatz) my hands in inno. 
cency ;" Is. 26 : 6. 



131 

" Purge me with hyssop and I shall be 
clean ; wash (rahatz) nae and I shall be 
whiter than snow ;" Ps. 51 : 7. 

*'I have cleansed my heart in vain and 
washed (rahatz) my hands in innocency ;" 
Ps. 73 : 13, 

" Wash (rahatz) ye ; make you clean ; 
put away the evil ;" Is. 1 : 16. 

*' When the Lord shall have washed away 
(rahatz) the filth of the daughters of Zion, 
and shall have purged the blood of Jerusa- 
lem from the midst thereof by the spirit of 
judgment and burning ;" Is. 4 : 4. 

^* O Jerusalem, wash (rahatz) thine heart 
from wickedness, that thou mayest be saved!" 
Jer. 4: 14. 

" For though thou wash (rahatz) thee with 
nitre, and take thee much soap, yet thine 
iniquity is marked before me, saith the 
Lord ;" Jer. 2 : 22. 

And if any one is not satisfied with these 
quotations, let him take a Hebrew Concord- 
ance and trace this word through the whole 
of the Old Testament, and he will find that 
it is used over and over to denote the wash- 



132 

ing of any things — of the feet, hands, face, 
body and nnind, — and that without the re- 
motest allusion to the mode in which it was 
to be done. It is a word which has in itself 
no reference to mode. It contemplates only 
an effect to be reached by the use of a fluid, 
without any regard to the manner of that 
use, whether by friction, pouring, sprinkling, 
soaking or plunging. 

We wish it therefore to be distinctly un- 
derstood and thoroughly impressed upon the 
mind, that this word rahatz, the meaning of 
which is simply to wash or cleanse, no mat- 
ter in what mode, is the word used by the 
Spirit of God in all those passages of the 
Mosaic law where bathing and washing are 
enjoined, and upon which Dr. Fuller relies 
so confidently as indicating immersion and 
nothing else. We insist that they were no 
more immersions than they were pourings, 
because the word which designates them 
means as much to pour upon as to immerse, 
and is as completely fulfilled by the one as 
by the other. 

Such then is the exact state of the case, 



133 

with regard to those Levitical lustrations in 
which bathing is spoken of. 

But in addition to this argument from the 
word raliaiz^ we remark further, that under 
all those circumstances upon which Dr. Ful- 
ler dwells as establishing that these bathings 
were performed by immersion, we have pos- 
itive proof that they were not performed by 
immersion. Take the case of the young 
man spoken of in Tobit, 6:2. He was out 
upon a journey ; he had encamped by the 
river-side ; and katehe^ he went down to wash 
himself. This word katehe^ he went down, is 
precisely the same, and used here under 
precisely the same circumstances, as in the 
cases of Naaman, and Philip and the Eu- 
nuch, where Dr. Fuller lays so much stress 
upon it. It is a word in which he finds a 
world of force and argument, when spoken 
with reference to an approach towards the 
water. Naaman katehe^ went down^ and 
washed in Jordan. Philip and the Eunuch 
katehesan^ went doion, into the water. And 
this is to prove to us that they were im- 
mersed. Well, just so this young traveler 
12* 



134 

Tcatele^ went dowuj to wash in the Tigris. 
Did he immerse himself? Was the sub- 
mersion of his body the mode in which his 
ablution was performed? Upon Dr. Ful- 
ler's argument we would say, most unques- 
tionably, yes. But let us not be so hasty 
and confident in our conclusions. The re- 
cord «5ays, katehe periklusasthai, he went 
down and washed himself all around; just as 
a man would stand in a stream and throw 
the water up on all sides of his body, and 
thoroughly rub himself clean. 

Here then is a case to explain what the 
Jews understood by those injunctions of the 
law providing that persons should '^ wash 
their flesh,'' or ^' bathe themselves in water;'* 
a case where the circumstances were such 
that if immersion had been contemplated, 
immersion certainly would have been per- 
formed ; a case which at once breaks the 
force of Dr. Fuller's argument on the word 
katehe and completely annihilates what he 
has built upon the word hathe. We care 
not whether the story be true or false, Tobit 
is not an inspired book, but its historical de- 



135 

tails may still be true. Whether it be fact 
or fiction J it is equally in point to illustrate 
the ideas, the manners and the customs of 
the age in which it was written, and is of 
more value for such a purpose than the say- 
ings of a thousand Rabbles of comparatively 
modern times. 

And in order that there may be no room 
for doubt upon the meaning of periklusasthai, 
(from perikluzo^) we adduce the following 
instances : 

Aristotle applies it to the washing of child- 
ren — to paidion Jiudati perikluzein, '-' to wash 
the child all around with waterP 

It is used by Euripides to denote the wash- 
ing of the body with water from the sea, 
where he applies nipto to the same opera- 
tion ; nipto^ according to Dr. Fuller's own 
authority on page 21, Aenoi\i\g hand- lo ashing ^ 
and not a total immersion. 

In Lucian, V. H., 1, 31, it is applied to 
an object wet or sprinkled on all sides with 
SPRAY hy rapid motion in icater, 

Plutarch uses kluzo to denote the cleans- 
ing of the system from bile by the use of 



136 

purgative medicines; and also with the pre- 
position apo^ (from,) to express the washing 
off of blood from armor that had been used 
in battle. 

Pollux gives it as the synonym of _pZw- 
nien, hruptein and kathairein^ and their com- 
pounds with dia^ apo and ek. All of which 
is quite inconsistent with the idea of immer- 
sion. 

And Stevens, Scapula, Ernesti, Hedricus, 
Passow, Donegan, and as far as we know, 
all the lexicographers give perikluzo as the 
washing around the person or thing which 
is the subject, so as to effect the most tho- 
roujrh cleansinop. 

This young man then, even when he was 
at the river side — after (toe^e) hewentdovm 
as Naaman and the Eunuch {kaiehe) loent 
down, and that for the express purpose of 
purifying himself — when every thing that 
Dr. Fuller relies on to prove an immersion 
was there — did not irmnerse himself^ but (pe- 
riklusasfhai) went to work with Jiis hands to 
cleanse himself thoroughly by washing him- 
self all around. 



137 

So much for those Levitical purifications 
in which washing and hathing are concerned. 
But besides those there were others, in which 
the mode is particularly designated. It also 
belongs to our purpose to say a word or two 
about these. 

And foremost, and above all, stands the 
great catharism^^ or expiation, of which we 
have an account in the twelfth chapter of 
Exodus, and which has been kept as an an- 
nual observance by the children of Israel for 
the last three thousand years. Ambrose, as 
we have seen, calls it a baptism. It was a 
holy ordinance of expiation, cleansing from 
sin and exempting from death, as it pointed 
to the great spiritual purgation effected by 
the blood-shedding of that Lamb of God that 
taketh away the sin of the world. It was 
ordained as a statute for ever among the 
generations of Israel. It pointed back to 
their redemption from Egypt and its destruc- 
tion, and forward to that still more glorious 
expiation effected by Jesus on the cross. It 
was among all the Jewish rites by eminence 

* From Katliarizo, to purify, to purge, to cleanse from guilt, 
to expiate. 



138 

a catJiarism, a cleansing, a covering up and 
washing away of sin. A more striking case 
of absolution is not contained in the ancient 
Scriptures. How then was it to be per- 
formed ? Will any one pretend to say that 
there was any bathing, washing or immer- 
sion about it ? A spotless lamb was to be 
slain, and its blood was to be struck or 
sprinkled upon the lintel and side-posts of 
the door. God saw those stains of blood and 
was satisfied, and the hand of destruction 
and death was restrained as it passed. 

One of the greatest uncleannesses among 
the Jews was the dreadful disease of lepro- 
sy. God also gave them special laws to be 
observed in purifying themselves from it. 
This constituted one of their most solemn 
purifications. And so far as the official and 
social act of this purification, as performed 
by an administrator, was concerned, it was 
done solely by sprinkling upon the subject 
the blood of a turtle-dove or pigeon. See 
Lev. 14. 

Another uncieanness under the Mosaic 
law was contact with the dead. The mode 



139 

of its purgation is also clearly given. " They 
shall take of the ashes of the burnt heifer of 
purification for sin, and running water shall 
be put thereto in a vessel ; and a clean person 
shall take hyssop, and dip it in the water, 
and sprinkle it upon him that touched a bone, 
or one slain, or one dead, or a grave ;" 
Num. 19 : 17, 18. 

Another of the Levitical purifications was 
that at the ordination and induction of the 
Levites to the priests' oflSce. In Numbers 
8: 3, 7, the mode of doing it is explicitly 
given. ** Take the Levites and cleanse 
them. And thus shalt thou do unto them to 
cleanse them : Sprinkle water of purifying 
upon them,^' Cyprian, in his 69th epistle, 
also adduces this very passage in proof of 
what is the scriptural mode of baptism. Ox- 
ford, 1844, p. 228. 

As to the other and more familiar lustra- 
tions of the Jews, a correct idea of the mode 
of their performance may be obtained from 
what is said in John, 2 : 6, in the account of 
the miracle at the marriage in Cana. "And 
there were set there six water pots of stone^ 



140 

AFTER THfi MANNER OF THE PURIFYING OF THE 

Jews, containing two or three firkins apiece,^^ 
Surely, if ^Hhe manner of the purifying of the 
JeiDs'''' was adequately provided for in a few 
water-jars, the contents of which could be 
entirely drunk up by way of a supplement 
to a wedding feast, those purifications were, 
at any rate, not performed by immersion. 
An allusion to the mode of these ordinary 
ablutions is also found in 2 Kings 3: 11, 
where Elisha is characterized as he " who 
POURED water on the hands of Elijah ;-^ i. e., 
the servant who assisted the prophet in his 
purifications. 

We also deem it worthy of remark, that 
in that orient world where customs never 
change, we still find some remains of these 
ceremonial purifications and of the manner 
in which they were performed. The Mus- 
sulman, seated on his sofa's edge, has a ves- 
sel placed before him on a large red cloth. 
A servant on the right pours out the water 
for his master's use, and another on the left 
stands ready with the drying towel. The 
devotee begins the service by baring his 



141 

arms to the elbows. He applies the water to 
his hands, mouth, nostrils and forehead, re* 
peating his prayers. He then rises up under 
the belief that he is pure. May not this also 
throw light upon " the manner of the purify- 
ing of the Jews^'^ from whom Mahomet and 
his people borrowed so many of their sacred 
ceremonies? 

Such then were the catharisms and lustra- 
tions prescribed in the Levitical code and 
performed by the Jews in the Saviour's time. 
If there were any others, performed in any 
way difierent from those which we have 
named, we should like to have them pointed 
out to us, not from Maimonides, who lived 
but 650 years ago^ or from Vatablus, who 
may still be giving Hebrew lessons to the 
students of Paris, but from the laws of Moses 
or from authentic records written by men 
cotemporaneous with Christ and his apostles. 
We do not pretend to deny indeed that many 
of these Levitical ablutions, when every thing 
else was convenient and favorable, were per- 
haps performed by immersion. This may 
have been, and thus we would account for 
13 



142 

the sayings of those men which Dr. Fuller 
has given in his book. But we do most 
positively deny that a total immersion of the 
body was an essential part of any of them, 
whilst many of them were by express in- 
junction of God to be performed by sprink" 
ling alone. 

We have already detained the reader 
longer upon this point than we designed ; 
but the great importance of it in determining 
the New Testament use of haptizo^ and its 
derivative haptismos, will readily be seen. 
It is with reference to these rites that these 
words are used. The nature of these rites 
must therefore determine the meaning of 
these words. And what shall be said of 
Dr. Fuller^s theory that " Baptizo denotes a 
total immersion and has no other meaning," 
when we make it appear that Paul, by in- 
spiration of God, sums up all these ancient 
catharisms and lustrations as so many differ- 

ent BAPTISMS ? 

Let the reader turn then to the ninth chap, 
ter of the Epistle to the Hebrews. The sa. 
cred writer there sets out to give an account 



143 

of the rites and ceremonies of the Mosaic 
law. He is talking of these rites and cere- 
monies, not as they apply to cups and pots 
and other inanimate things, bat as they ap- 
plied to the persons of the worshipers and of 
their efficacy to ^^ make perfect as pertaining 
to the conscience." He mentions expressly 
the legal abstinences and offerings, the 
sprinkling of the blood of expiation by the 
priest and the sprinkling of the ashes of an 
heifer upon the unclean. And in verse 10 
he takes them all up in one mental grasp 
and finds them all comprehended, monon 
epi bromasi, kai pomasi^ kai diaphorois bap- 
TisMois, that is to say, '^ only in ineats^ and 
drinks^ and divers baptisms." 

Here we have it, plain, unequivocal, star- 
ing every man full in the face, that with 
the exception of distinctions in meats and 
drinks, the whole round of the Levitical 
purifications, from the sprinkling of blood 
by the high priest in the holy of holies to the 
sprinkling of the ashes of the burnt heifer 
on the bodies of the unclean, "stood onl]^ 
in^'^^ and by inspiration of the great God him- 



144 

self are called baptisms — diaphorois hap' 
tismois. 

What can be clearer than this ? What 
more conclusive? Is it not demonstration 
itself? 



145 



CHAPTER X. 

Baptisms under the law diverse — Baptisms 
before eating not immersions — Baptism of 
tables or couches — The proper words for 
simple immersion never used with reference 
to baptism. 

We have now shown that the purifications 
and expiations enjoined in the Jewish law 
were not immersions, but either sprinklings 
or simple washings, ordinarily performed 
under circumstances where immersion was 
quite out of the question. We have also 
seen that the inspired writer in Hebrews 
sums up all these Levitical purifications in 
the one word, baptisms. We can conceive 
of no stronger proof to show that this word 
does not and cannot always mean im- 
merse and nothing else The sprinkling of 
the blood of the paschul lamb on the doors 
certainly was not an immersion ; neither was 
the sprinkling of the ashes of the red heifer 
on the unclean an immersion. The sprink- 
ling of the blood of a young pigeon upon the 
13* 



146 

recovering leper was not an immersion. 
The cleansing of the Levites, by sprinkling 
" water of purifying upon them,'' was not an 
immersion. Elisha's pouring of water on 
the hands of Elijah was not an immersion. 
**The manner of the purifying of the Jews," 
as indicated by the " six water-pots of stone," 
in which the Saviour's first miracle was 
wrought, was not by immersion. And even 
those more thorough washings of the flesh 
and bathings, all of which are denoted by 
the word rahatz, were not necessarily im- 
mersions, any more than hand-washings. 
And yet inspired authority calls them all 
baptisms. 

Besides, the very epithet which the apos- 
tle uses to describe these baptisms shows 
that he did not mean immersions. He de- 
nominates them diaphorols — different, diverse, 
distinguishable the one from the other. An 
immersion is an immersion ; and one immer- 
sion for purification is just like all other im- 
mersions for purification. Such immersions 
were not diverse or various, either in act, in 
circumstances or in end. One is a perfect 



147 

faz simile of the other. There is no diver- 
sity about them. But the baptisms of which 
the apostle is speaking he characterizes ex- 
pressly as diaphorois haptismois, divers bap- 
tisms. If he meant divers immersions, they 
that so understand him are bound to show 
the diversity. They have never done it; 
and taking the word in that sense, they never 
can do it. But, taking haptisms here in the 
wider and more natural sense of katharizo, 
to purify and expiate, the diversity spoken 
of is at once obvious. Some were performed 
by the use of blood, some by the use of ashes 
and others by the use of water. In some 
the performance was by sprinkling, in some 
by hand-washing, in others by pouring water 
on the hands, and perchance in a few cases 
by immersion. This forms the variety. And 
still they were all baptisms. The sprink- 
lings with ashes were haptisms, expressly so 
called by Cyril of Alexandria, who lived 
within a few hundred years of the apostles ; 
and the sprinklings with blood were haptisms, 
so more than once declared by Ambrose, 
who lived still nearer to the apostolic age ; 



148 

and the various lustrations, including the 
washing of hands and other water applica- 
tions, were baptisms, so pronounced by Cle- 
ment of Alexandria, who lived within one 
hundred years of the death of St. John; and 
all of them together were laptisms, so de- 
clared by authority which could not err, even 
by the inspired writer of the Epistle to the 
Hebrews. Is it not as plain then as Ian- 
guage can make it, that they were haptisms, 
not because they were immersions, for they 
were not immersions, but baptisms in the 
only true religious sense of the word, be- 
cause they were purifications ? 

In Mark 7 : 4, we have another instance 
of the use of baplizo, in which we must as- 
sign to it this same signification. " And 
when they come from the market, except 
they wash (baptisontai) they eat not. And 
many other things there be, which they have 
received to hold, as the washing (baptismous) 
of cups, and pots, and brazen vessels, and 
tables:' 

Dr. Fuller's position is, that " an entire 
immersion belongs to the nature of baptism ;'' 



149 

that " baptizo contains the idea of a cojnplefe 
immersion under water;" that it ^^ always 
denotes a total immersion ;^^ pp. 19, 23. Of 
course then, if his position is true, it must 
hold good in this case; and when it is said 
that the Pharisees never eat after returning 
from the market until they have baptized 
themselves, it must mean that they totally 
immersed themselves. Did they then totally 
immerse themselves ? He quotes fourteen 
authorities on this point ; quite a formidable 
array surely. But two of these very author- 
ities, in the very passages quoted, speak only 
of washings, without saying one word about 
the mode in which they were to be done ; 
and seven more of these same authorities, 
Campbell, Buxtorf, Wetstein, Rosenmiiller, 
Kuinol, Spencer and Lightfoot, say most ex- 
plicitly that these Pharisaic purifications 
after return from market, were only wash- 
ings of the hands f So that seven out of 
twelve of his own witnesses, and those the 
most reliable, positively declare that these 
Pharisaic baptisms were not total immersions^ 
but hand-washings. 



150 

Nor will it meet the case for Dr. Fuller 
to say or to 2)rone that these hand- washings 
were immersions of the hands. The hap-- 
tisms are predicated of '* the Pharisees and 
all the Jews^'^ not of the hands of the Phari- 
sees and Jews. ^' And when they come from 
the market, except they wash (baptisontai) 
they eat not.'' The hopiism is the baptism 
of the same that went to market, that re- 
turned from market and that ate. The same 
nominative stands for all these verbs. Cer- 
tainly it was not the hands alone that went to 
market, nor the hands alone that returned 
from market, nor the hands alone that ate. 
"The Pharisees and all the Jews" constitute 
the subject of whom these things are alleged ; 
and Dr. Fuller can no more exempt all but 
hands from the force of hapiisontai than he 
can exempt all but hands from the eating and 
returning from market. It was the Phari- 
sees that ate, and the Pharisees that returned 
from market, and it was the Pharisees that 
baptized themselves. And so, if that baptism 
was performed by a simple washing of the 
hands, no matter whether they were steeped 



151 

in water, or whether water was poured, or 
sprinkled, or rubbed upon them, it was not a 
total immersion ; and haptho here must take 
the sense of purify^ and not that of entire 
immersion under water. 

But what is to be done with Dr. Fuller's 
five remaining authorities, in which it is said 
that the Pharisees totally immersed them- 
selves before eating, after having been at 
the market ? Whether he has quoted then! 
fairly we have not attempted to ascertain. 
All we have to say on that point is, that a 
man who can take the liberties with the 
Book of God — a book in every one's hand — 
which we have proven upon Dr. Fuller, is 
not very much to be relied on v/hen he comes 
to give a line or two here and there from 
rare books, which the most intelligent men 
seldom see. But yvq will suppose these quo- 
tations all accurate and just. What do they 
amount to? Two of them, one from Mai- 
monides and one from Vatablus, say not a 
word about the market, and may refer to a 
very different department of Pharisaic lus- 
trations from that alluded to in the text. But 



152 

we pass this also, and permit them all to 
stand as going directly to the point. And 
yet we can satisfactorily meet them all with- 
out traveling out of Dr. Fuller's own book. 
Seven of his own authorities, and the very 
best out of the twelve that he has quoted in 
this place, flatly contradict, confound and 
completely negative the other five, and in 
words as positive as can be chosen, declare 
that these Pharisaic purifications aftep at- 
tending market were not total immersions^ but 
ha7id- was kings* Are not seven an adequate 
offset to Jive ? Are not Buxtorf, Wetstein, 
Rosenmiiller, Kuinol, Spencer, and Lightfoot 
names as great and controlling as Vatablus, 
Grotius, Maimonides and Macknight? Ac 
cording to one list the baptism before us was 
an- immersion of the whole body, a /o/aZ im- 
mersion ; according to the other list it was a 
mere washing of the hands ; accordmg to a 
third list it was a simple washing, without 
specification of mode ; and all the lists are 
Dr. Fuller's own quotations ! Let him har- 
monize his authorities if he can, and then 
perhaps they may be of some weight. If 



153 

these purifications from the contaminations 
of the market-place were mere teas kings, 
they may have been immersions, or they 
may have been sprinklings or rubbings. If 
they were mere hand-washings, they certain- 
ly were not total immersions ; and the great 
weight of his authorities goes to establish 
that they were mere hand-washings and 
nothing else. 

Now we do not intend to maintain that 
these Pharisaic lustrations from the supposed 
defilement of attending market were never 
performed by a general bathing, or even by 
a total immersion. The probability is, that 
in the warm season, and when circumstances 
made it convenient, they did at times per- 
form this particular purification in one or the 
other of these ways. No sensible man will 
deny that such instances may have occurred. 
And this will sufficiently account for what 
has been said by Maimonides, Grotius and 
Macknight. But we do maintain that this 
was not the only nor the ordinary way of 
performing this purification. The seven 
authorities quoted by Dr. Fuller, which de- 
14 



154 

clare that it was done by the mere washing 
of the hands, is proof enough to our purpose. 
But we will not stop with what they have 
said. Our author seems to think that au- 
thorities are arguments, and therefore we 
will not withhold them. 

The Commentator Henry remarks upon 
the customs of the Jews as related to this 
passage, '• They particularly washed before 
they ate bread. They took special care, 
when they came from the markets, to wash 
their hands. The rule of the Rabbins was, 
that if they washed their hands well in the 
morning, it would serve for all day, provided 
they kept alone ; but if they went into com- 
pany, they must not eat or pray till they had 
washed their hands." 

Scott says, " It seems undeniable, that by 
the words haptize and lapisms a partial ap- 
plication of water was intended in this as in 
several other places.'^ 

Dr. SchafF, in his History of the Apostolic 
Church, p. 569, says, " In support of this, 
(that baptizo has the general sense, to wash, 
to cleanse,) a confident appeal can assuredly 



155 

be made to several passages, viz : Luke 11 : 
38, with Mark 7 : 2, 4, where hapiizien is 
used of the washing of hands before eating. 
Mark has for this, v. 3, niptein, which in the 
East was performed by pouring,'^ The same 
author says that in Mark 7 : 4, 8, Heb. 9 : 
10, '^ Baptismoi must be taken to include all 
sorts of religious purifications among the Jews, 
including sprinkling.*^ 

Bloomfield says that baptize here does 
NOT denote an immersion. 

In Morris and Smith's Expositions of the 
Gospels we have this note upon this passage, 
" They (the Jews) did not immerse them- 
selves in water, but used a small quantity, 
which was applied to the hand and wrist, or, 
at most, to the arm as far as the elbow. It 
cannot be proved that the Jews washed the 
whole body when they returned from market. 
There could have been no necessity for it, 
even in their opinion ; the most they did was 
to wash those parts which were exposed to 
contamination.'' 

Albert Barnes says, '^ Baptize in this place 
does not mean to immerse the whole body. 



156 

There is no evidence that the Jews inimersed 
their whole bodies every tinne they came 
from the market. It is probable they wash- 
ed as a mere ceremony, and often doubtless 
with the use of a very small quantity of 
water." 

And in the notes to the Cottage Bible it is 
said that some of the wealthier, who had the 
leisure and all the necessary conveniences, 
may have immersed themselves ; but that 
the generality of the Jews did no more than 
wash their hands. 

Dr. Fuller may say these are all modern 
authorities. Be it so; we will give him 
some more ancient. The oldest that he has 
,^iven carries us back to the close of the 
twelfth century. Theophylact lived more 
than a hundred years earlier, and is pro- 
nounced by Mosheim and Neander the most 
distinguished exegetical writer of his age ; 
and Theophylact says that these Jewish pu- 
rifications before eating were performed by 
mere hand- washings. He designates them 
by the word niptesthait a word which, ac- 
cording to Beza, (as quoted by Dr. Fuller 
himself,) has respect only to the hands. 



157 

But we go back six hundred years further 
stilL We point Dr. Fuller to the oldest but 
one, if not the very oldest existing copy of 
the Bible itself — to a manuscript of the New 
Testament, which, for its internal excellence 
and nearest approach to the older Greek 
copies, was preferred by Michaelis to all 
others — to the Codex Vaticamis. We point 
him also to eight other ancient copies, as 
also to Euthemius, the Isaurian ; all of which 
have EANTisoNTAi in the place of lapiisontai : 
^' When they come from the market, except 
they 'purify themselves ly sprinkling, they 
eat not«" And surely, if the old Greek 
transcribers thirteen hundred years ago con- 
sidered the word baptism in this passage as 
the proper equivalent of sprinkling, it ought 
to settle the case. If Dr. Fuller really en- 
tertains the reverence for authority which he 
professes, let him bow before it and confess 
that baptize does not here mean a total im- 
mersion and nothing else. 

But "the Pharisees and all the Jews" not 
only baptized or purified themselves ; they 
had also received to hold many like things, 
14* 



158 

such as ''the baptizing or purifying (hapiis- 
mous) of cups and pots, brazen vessels and 
of tables y As to these cups, pots and braz- 
en vessels, they may have been immersed or 
not, as circumstances rendered convenient. 
We suppose they ordinarily virere immersed, 
because this was the most convenient and 
natural mode of purifying them. Anasta- 
sius, however, gives us instances in which 
such vessels were purified simply by pour- 
ing water into them ; and calls such a puri- 
fication Baptism. (BibIo» Pairum, vol. 5, 
p. 958.) But what shall be said of the ^^ta- 
lies ?'' Dr. Fuller tells us not to think of 
''our massive mahogany furniture," and 
wishes to make his readers believe that 
nothing more is meant than " a round piece 
of leather f^^ ip, 60. Unfortunately for him 
his own favorite authority, quoted in the very 
next paragraph, completely spoils his beau- 
tiful fabrication. Maimonides says, '^- Every 
vessel of wood, which is made for the use of 
man, as a table, receives defilement." After 
all, it seems that a Jewish "/a^Ze" was made 
*' of loood,'' and that it was a very different 



159 

thing from " a round piece of leather, spread 
upon the floor, upon which is placed a sort 
of stool, supporting nothing but a platter!" 
How " massive^^ Dr. Fuller's "mahogany fur- 
niture" may be, we know not. He claims 
to be something out of the ordinary line of 
Baptists, and advocates a system very dif- 
ferent from that held by the great majority 
of Christians; and it may be that his " ma- 
hogany furniture " is also something out of 
the common order of things. But we do 
know, that especially among the wealthier 
Pharisees — the very parties concerned in the 
passage before us — the "tables" in use were 
cumbersome wooden structures, from eight to 
twenty feet in length, about four feet wide 
and about three or four feet high. (See 
Watson's Dictionary, Art. Banquet; Home's 
Introduction, vol. 2, part 4, chap. 1, sec. 4; 
and Comprehensive Commentary on John, 
13:23, 25.) And whether such articles 
were ordinarily submerged in water after 
every meal, we ask the reflecting to judge. 
But the word klinon, here rendered iahles, 
does not properly mean the tables on which 



160 

food was placed, but the couches, sofas and 
cushions on which the guests reclined whilst 
eating. Dr. Fuller becomes very impatient 
under this fact and says, " I donH care what 
it means. The Bible says they immersed the 
articles, and this is enough;^' p. 61. Take 
it easy. Doctor ; the Bible says no such thing. 
That awkward and equivocal Latin word 
immerse is not in the Bible, and never will 
be there until Baptists are allowed to carry 
into effect that cherished wish of their hearts, 
to wit, the adjustment of the Word of God to 
their miserable sectarian system. The word 
klinon means couches or beds, and the Bible 
says that the Jews baptized them; and we 
wish the reader to inquire into the character 
of these articles, in order to make up his 
mind as to whether that baptism was a total 
immersion. What were these couches? 
The learned Home thus refers to them : 
" The more opulent had (as those in the East 
still have) fine carpets, couches, or divans, 
and sofas, on which they sat, lay and slept. 
In later times their couches M^ere splendid, 
and the frames inlaid with ivory, and the 



161 

coverlids rich and perfumed. On these so- 
fas, in the latter ages of the Jewish State, 
(the very period to which this text relates,) 
they universally reclined when taking their 
meals, resting on their side with their heads 
towards the table;" (Int., vol. 2, p. 154.) 
Watson thus describes them, " Round the 
tables were placed beds or couches, one to 
each table; each of these beds was called 
clinium. At the end of each clinium was a 
footstool, for the convenience of mounting up 
to it. These beds were formed of mattresses 
and supported on frames of wood, often high- 
ly ornamented ; the mattresses were covered 
with cloth or tapestry, according to the qual- 
ity of the entertainer;" (Theol. Die, ArL 
Banquet.) Even Mr. Carson, one of Dr. 
Fuller's guides, freely concedes that such 
were the articles denoted by Klinon. Upoa 
these couches too Clement tells us that it 
was the custom of the Jews often to be 
baptized. And can any soberminded man 
suppose that such " splendid " articles were 
subject to daily immersions ? and above all, 
with men reclining on them ? If not, then 



162 

hapfizo here signifies only to purify ^ and that 
in some mode less troublesome and less de- 
structive than that of quite burying them in 
the water. 

Another passage in which laptizo occurs 
is Luke 11: 38. «^A certain Pharisee be- 
sought Jesus to dine with him ; and Jesus 
went in and sat down to meat. And when 
the Pharisee saw it he marveled that Jesus 
had not first washed (ehaptisthe) before din- 
ner." Here we have the same sort of puri- 
fication spoken of in the preceding passage. 
And if the Jewish lustrations were ordinarily 
performed by simply washing their hands, 
even when returning from the market, it 
certainly is not to be supposed in this case 
that Christ was expected to immerse himself. 
Kuinol says that the existence of any such 
custom as that of regular immersion before 
all meals cannot be proved. Henry, Burk- 
itt and Olshausen understand mere hand- 
washing to be indicated. The translators 
have not improperly rendered it wash. It 
denotes no more than a common ceremonial 
purification, which was sufficiently accom- 
plished by a simple wetting of the hands. 



163 

We would also ask Dr. Fuller to tell us 
why the words katapontizo, katadumi and 
katahaptizo are never used by the sacred 
writers in connection with the sacrament of 
baptism. The direct, certain and unequivo- 
cal meaning of all these words is " a total 
immersion and nothing else." They every 
where and always have the very '^ univo- 
cal meaning " which he wishes to fix upon 
haptizo. What then is the reason that the 
inspired penmen have never used one of 
them with reference to baptism ? Is not the 
omission significant ? Has not this divine 
particularity, in using only haptizo, a lesson 
for us ? Does it not teach us that there is a 
peculiarity about the meaning of this word 
something different from the simple act of 
immersion ? Let Dr. Fuller explain. 

In the mean time we ask the reader, in 
view of the facts and evidences which we 
have thus far submitted, whether it is possi- 
ble for a sane, honest man still to say that 
haptizo always denotes a total immersion and 
has no other meaning ? 



164 



CHAPTER XL 

Our doctrine respecting Baplizo — Has a pe» 
culiar religious sense — Is used inter change* 
ahlyioith Katharizo — Explained hy Dikaioo, 
Purifiers called Baptizers— The holy Ghost; 
John — Other instances — Testimony from 
the Fathers — Inference from the nature of 
things. 

Our doctrine is, that haptizo, with its de- 
rivatives, in the vocabulary of the New 
Testament, is a religious word, and always 
used in the same distinct religious sense. If 
it meant to immerse and nothing else, it 
would unquestionably have been some where 
interchanged with other Greek words which 
have this specific signification. It is never 
so interchanged. Dr. Fuller agrees that 
^Uhe Holy Spirit always, in speaking of the 
ordinance (of baptism,) uses one single 
word. That word is haptizo ;^^ p. 12. This, 
fact is very significant. It shows conclu- 
sively that this word is not the synonym of 
katapontizo, katadumi, katahaptizo, or any 



165 

other word that has the specific signification 
of sinking under water, but has a sense pe- 
culiarly and i)Ye-emmeni\y its own ; not a 
sense up to the time foreign and unknown to 
this word, but one among its well known 
significations, now adopted, fixed and ever 
after adhered to as the specific sense in which 
the Holy Ghost employs it. 

Dr. Fuller affects to be filled with holy 
jealousy at such a doctrine. Though its 
truth is so distinctly indicated by the acts of 
the Holy Spirit, he does not condescend to 
pay it the commonest respect. He will not 
call it '^amusing absurdity" and '' ridiculous 
sophistry;" the subject is ''too solemn" for 
that. It is presented as something with 
horns and split hoofs ; a black spirit from 
the under- world, bearing the name of blas- 
phemy ; '^ AN IMPIETY which ought to fill a 
pious mind with horror /" p. 32. So calm is 
his philology, that when arguments fail him, 
it will even allow him to raise the cry of, 
Infernal Apparition! to frighten the unsus- 
pecting from the true import of the Revela- 
tion of God, But with all Dr. Fuller's ^'hue 
15 



166 

and cry" about absurdity, sophistry and hor- 
rible impiety, we maintain that hajHizo has a 
religious sense — a peculiar, settled and spa- 
cific religious signification. To this fact we 
have the testimony of those men who made 
the Latin version of the Bible, and the testi- 
mony of the English translators of the Bible. 
And what horrible impietists these great 
Christian teachers must have been, all to 
agree that haptizo in the Saviour's lips was 
a word so peculiar in its application as not 
to be capable of an exact translation by any 
other verb, either in Latin or English. Even 
Mr. Carson himself admits, that immersion 
and baptism are not synonymous words, and 
remarks that they " are any thing rather than 
synonymous." — p. 383. 

We have just argued that haptizo was not 
used by the inspired writers to signify a total 
immersion and nothing else, because they 
have never used it interchangeably with other 
words which have this specific signification. 
Upon the same principle we argue, that if 
an instance can be found in which the sacred 
penmen use it interchangeably with any other 



167 

word, that word must give its true scriptural, 
religious sense, its proper, technical, New 
Testament signification. Have we any such 
instance ? We have. 

Let the reader turn to John 3 : 22, and 
read from that on to John 4 : 3. The apos- 
tie here tells us that John the Baptist was 
baptizing at Enon, and that Jesus was also 
engaged in baptizing, at least by his disci- 
ples, in the same vicinity. John had been 
baptizing great multitudes; but it seems that 
at this time the public attention was some- 
what diverted from John's baptism to that of 
the Saviour. A sort of jealousy was engen. 
dered in some of John's disciples by this 
turn in the current of popular favor, and 
they began to speak of it. A dispute arose 
about the relative merits of John's baptism 
and Christ's baptism. And this dispute about 
haptism the sacred writer terms ^' a question 
peri KATHARisMOU," — ahout purifying. Of 
course it could not have been a question 
about purification in general ; that is alto- 
gether foreign to the scope of the passage. 
It was haptism that gave rise to the dispute ; 



168 

and haptism was the subject with which the 
disputants, on the one side at least, went to 
John to complain ; (v. 26.) It necessarily 
follows, therefore, that the subject of their 
dispute was haptism. Chrysostom, Gregory 
of Nyssa, and Cyril of Alexandria, testify 
expressly, in commenting upon this passage, 
that the question concerning purification was 
simply and only a question concerning hap' 
tism, Theophylact says of John's disciples 
and the Jews on this occasion, that they 
*^ disputed concerning purification, that is 
iaptismJ^ Olshausen says, '* The dispute 
related to hapiism,^' Dr. Beecher says, 
^' The dispute in question was plainly a spe- 
cific dispute concerning haptism as practiced 
by Jesus and John/' Schleusner, Wahl, 
Vaier, Rosenmliller, De Wetle, Bretschnei- 
der and Kuinol all say that baptism was the 
only subject of the question. Grotius, Beza, 
Whitby, Doederlin, Burkitt, Clarke and 
Henry take the same view. Rosenmliller, 
Vater, Kuinol and Schleusner give haptism 
as the proper translation of katharismou in 
this passage. Even Professor Ripley him- 



169 

self, nay, all that have ventured to comment 
upon this place, so far as we know, Mr. 
Carson alone excepted, in some way or other 
make katharismou here mean baptism. By 
BO just laws of interpretation can it be made 
to mean any thing else. And whether we 
put haptism in the place of the word purify- 
ing^ or put purify in the place of baptize^ the 
sense remains conspicuously the same. 

Here then is a divine key to unlock to us 
the true religious sense of baptizo. By in- 
spiration of the Holy Ghost it has its equiv- 
alent and synonym in katJiarizo^ which means 
to purify. The dispute of which the apostle 
speaks was not a dispute about *' a total im- 
mersion and nothing else/' but a dispute 
about purifying. That purifying was the 
religious rite of baptism, as practiced both 
by Christ and his fore-runner. It follows 
therefore with inevitable certainty, and that, 
not from heathen classics or modern Jewish 
paraphrasts, but from the infallible word of 
God itself, that the true religious sense of 
laptizo is religious purification. If this is 
15* 



170 

^^horrible impiety^'''' let Dr. Fuller make the 
most of it. 

Another word given in the Scriptures as 
equivalent to haptizo is dikaioo^ to clear, jus- 
tify, to declare innocent, and hence also to 
purify. In Hebrews 9 : 10, the writer 
makes diapJiorois hapiismois — divers bap- 
tisms — the exact equivalent of dikaiomasi 
sarkos^ clearings of the flesh. He is speak- 
ing of the external expiations and lustrations 
prescribed in the Jewish law. He calls them 
all baptisms ; and these outward baptisms he 
calls clearings or purifyings of the flesh. It 
is true, in the English Bible, the word "and'^' 
comes between these two expressions, as if 
the writer designed to designate two distinct 
departments in the legal services of which 
he is speaking. But Griesbach altogether 
rejects this '-and^^ (kai) as not a genuine 
reading. Professor Stuart takes the same 
view, and renders the passage, ^^ meats and 
drinks and divers washings (baptisms) — ordi-- 
nances pertaining to the flesh, ^^ The Syriac 
version, according to Murdock's translation 
of it, is very clear in this view. After the 



171 

reference to meats and drinks and baptisms, 
it has this unequivocal phrase, " which were 
carnal ordinances?^ In a tract before us, 
from a doctor of divinity in the city of Bal- 
timore, the passage is rendered, " meats and 
drinks and divers baptisms, (even) justifi- 
cations (or purifications) of theJieshP'^ And 
it is evident to all who will examine, that 
this must be the true reading, because there 
are no justifications or purifyings of the flesh 
prescribed in all the Jewish law, which are 
not completely included "in meats and 
drinks and divers baptisms." Baptismois 
and dikaiomasi are therefore interchangeable 
terms. At least the Holy Ghost employs the 
one to explain the other. Dikaioma no where, 
to our knowledge, means immersion or any 
thing like it. It means a judicial clearing. 
In Rom. 2: 26, 5: 18, 8: 4, and Rev. 19: 
8, it is rendered righteousness; in many 
places, justify ; in Rom. 6: 1, freed. All 
these are also meanings of katharizo. And 
if these words explain the meaning of bapti- 
zo^ a religious purifying is certainly its sense. 
There can be no escape from this argument. 



172 

Again, in 1 Cor. 12: 13, the Holy Ghost 
himself is presented as a haptizer, '^ For hy 
one Spirit loe are all baptized (ehaptistha- 
men,^') Is the Holy ^'pirit an immerser or 
plunger ? No ; the Holy Spirit is a sanctifi" 
er, a purifier; Ez. 37: 28, Rom. 15: 16, 
1 Peter 1:2. " The baptism of the Holy 
Ghost," says Brown, <^ denotes not only the 
miraculoys collation of the influences of the 
blessed Spirit, whereby the New Testament 
Church was solemnly consecrated to the 
service of God ; but cliiejiy his gracious in- 
fluences, which, like fire, purify, soften and 
inflame our heart with love to Jesus, and 
wash away our sin, and enable us to join 
ourselves to him and his people." When, 
therefore, the fulfilment of these offices of 
the Holy Ghost upon the recovered sinner is 
called baptism^ are we not bound to interpret 
the word according to the nature of the of- 
fices and work of the Holy Spirit? If the 
work and office of the Holy Ghost is to pu^ 
rify^ and God calls that purification baptism^ 
is it not a clear and palpable demonstration, 
that in God's mouth the terms are converti- 



173 

ble, and that haptizo in its proper religious 
sense means purification? 

There is also a passage in the first chap- 
ter of John, (v. 19j 28,) which remains ex- 
ceedingly obscure until we give to baptizo 
its proper signification of purify. The au- 
thorities of the Jewish people sent a deputa- 
tion to John the Baptist, to ascertain from 
him his true official character and position. 
They asked whether he was Elijah, mista- 
king as they did the true import of the predic- 
tion in Malachi 4 : 5, 6. John said he was 
not. They asked him whether he was that 
prophet foretold by Moses in Deuteronomy, 
18 : 15. He answered again he was not. 
They then asked him, " Why baptizest 
(haptizeis) thou therij if thou be not the 
Christy nor Elijah^ neither that prophet ?" 
What does this mean ? What had been 
said by the ancient prophets concerning 
Christ and his fore-runner, that led the 
Jewish officials to suppose that these predic- 
tions were verified in John's work of baptiz- 
ing? Had God's messenger been predicted 
as an immerser? No. Had Christ been 



174 

predicted as an immerser? No. In what 
peculiar character then had they been pre- 
dicted, to give rise to this singular question? 
One passage in Malachi (3 : 1, 3) will solve 
the whole difficulty. In that passage the 
Saviour is foretold as a purifier, likened to 
^^a refiner's fire and fuller's soap," who 
should '* sit as a refiner and purifier of sil- 
ver/' who should "purify the sons of Levi 
and purge them as gold and silver." See 
also Is. 1:25, 4:4; Zech. 13:9; Matt. 
3: 10, 12; and Lightfoot's large collection 
of Rabbinical passages on this point. Ac- 
cording to these prophecies the Jews univer- 
sally expected both Elijah and Christ in the 
official character of purifiers. And when 
they put the question to John, why he bap- 
tized^ if he was neither Christ nor Elijah ? 
they doubtless used the word in the sense of 
the prophecies which led them to ask the 
question, and the nature of the case requires 
us to put upon it the only intelligible sense - 
of purification. 

So far then as the peculiar Christian sense 
of baptizo can be condensed into one Eng- 



175 

lish expression, it denotes a religious pari' 
fying. 

Nor was this meaning unknown to this 
word and for the first time assigned to it by 
the writers df the New Testament. Mr. 
Carson himself admits that all the lexicog- 
raphers and commentators do assign to it 
the unlimited sense, to wash or cleanse. 
Schrevelius, Dunbar, Grove, Parkhurst, 
Scapula, Stephens, Passow, Ernesti, Schnei- 
der, et ceteray all sustain the use of it in the 
sense of purification. And we have seen 
that the almost exclusive use of it in the 
version of the seventy, which was made one 
hundred and fifty years before Christ's time, 
is as the synonym of louo^ in the sense of 
religious purifying. 

But even if baptize had never been used 
in this sense previous to its introduction into 
the New Testament, that it is so used by the 
Holy Ghost is di fixed fact^ which no ingenu- 
ity or eloquence on earth can unsettle. We 
have seen that it is used by the inspired John 
as the synonym of kalharizo^ which means 
only to cleanse^ especially in a religious, le- 



176 

gal or ceremonial sense. Paul employs it 
to denote the work of God's Spirit in the 
sinner's heart, which is a purification and 
not an immersion. John is again and again 
called the laptizer, and was supposed to be 
either Elias or the Christ simply because he 
cleansed Israel by a religious purifying. 
The writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews 
calls all the various sprinklings, expiations 
and lustrations under the Jewish law, many 
of which certainly were not immersions, di- 
vers laptisms^ only because they were jpuri- 
Jications, The Pharisaic washing of hands 
before eating, the washing of pots and cups 
and brazen vessels, and the sprinkling of 
beds and couches, are all called baptisms^ 
upon no other ground but that they were 
ceremonial purifications. Christ himself is 
said to have been baptized (with water by 
John, and with blood and agony in Geth- 
semane and on the cross) for the expressed 
purpose, and only in this respect, that he 
might fulfil all righteousness, (Matt. 3 : 15,) 
and be perfected through sufferings, (Heb. 
2 : 10,) and have effected in himself the 



177 

great purgation through which those who 
are in him are justified and purified for ever. 
The Israelites are said to have been baptized 
unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea, be- 
cause, according to Vitringa, Wolf, Bengel, 
Rosenmiiller, Semler, Schleusner and others, 
they were thereby initiated into the religion 
which Moses taught, ransomed from their 
degradation and bondage in Egypt, absolved 
from their old task-masters, consecrated as 
God's peculiar people, purified from their 
former associations with the heathen, and by 
a wonderful divine interposition, separated 
from the vile and blaspheming, as a people 
henceforth and for ever specially ordained 
to hear God's messengers and to obey God's 
law. That baptism was not an immersion, 
the hosts of Pharaoh alone were immersed ; 
but it was a mysterious consecration, an ab- 
solution, an induction into a new and holier 
state, a purification. Augustine (Serm. de 
Catach., vol. 9, p. 320, Paris, 1586,) speaks 
of it as a ^'salvation hy water, ^' " One ele- 
ment," says he, " by the command of the 
Creator, judged both ; for it separated the 
16 



178 

righteous from the wicked. The former it 
loashed^ the latter it overwhelmed; the for- 
mer it PURIFIED, the latter it destroyed." In 
the same way in Romans 6:3, 11, Chris- 
tians are said to be baptized into Jesus 
Christ, because in him their old body of sin 
is destroyed, their guilt absolved, their im- 
purities purged out and a glorious renovation 
effected. There can be no immersion in 
Christ, nor yet in the death of Christ; but 
there is absolution in Christ, and in his 
death, B.nd puriji cation ^ for his blood cleans- 
eth from all sin. And there is not a single 
instance in the New Testament in which 
baptize is used, where it does not naturally, 
if not necessarily, take the sense of reli- 
gious purification. 

The testimony from the fathers that bapti-- 
zo has the sense of katharizo, and in Chris- 
tian language means a religious purifying, 
is almost without limit, as Dr. Beecher has 
satisfactorily shown. 

Take the lexicographers Zonaras and 
Phavorinus. They were not among the 
early fathers, but they give us dictionaries 



179 

founded on the early fathers. Zonaras was 
one of the four leading Byzantine historianse 
He wrote annals from the beginning of the 
world down to A. D. 1118, and various coni- 
mentaries on apostolic canons, decrees of 
councils, etc. Tittman says of his lexicon, 
^'I consider it, after that of Hesychius, the 
most learned of all others that survive, the 
most copious and most accurate." And yet 
these great lexicographers say not one word 
about immersion in connection with baptism. 
They define " Baptisma — The remission of 
sins by water and the Spirit — the unspeaka- 
ble forgiveness of sins — the loosing of the 
bond (of sin) granted by the love of God to- 
wards men — the voluntary arrangement of 
a new life towards God — the releasing or 
recovery of the soul to that which is better, 
to holiness." All these are exact definitions 
of religious purifying. They are all mean- 
ings of katharizo. And surely those words 
must be synonymous to which the same de- 
finitions are given. 

But these are not the mere opinions of 
Zonaras and Phavorinus. They are taken 



180 

almost literally from the fathers. Basil on 
Isaiah 4 : 4, sets himself to give a formal 
and comprehensive definition of the whole 
import of baptisma. In this definition he 
gives three significations or applications of 
the word, in each of which the idea of puri- 
fication is the uppermost. He says that 
baptism means purification from filth, spirit- 
ual purification, (pneumaios anagennesis,) 
and purgation or trial by the fire of the judg- 
ment. Clement calls the washing of Penel- 
ope and the wetting of the hands of Telem- 
achus with sea-water, in Homer, and the 
lustrations of the Jews whilst reclining on 
(epi) their couches, baptisms^ certainly not 
because they were immersions, they were 
not immersions, but because they were reli- 
gious purifyings, Justin Martyr calls de- 
liverance from evil passions a baptism, 
Origen calls martyrdom a baptism. Am- 
brose calls the sprinkling of the blood of the 
paschal Ip.mb on the doors in Egypt a bap^ 
tism. Cyril calls the sprinkling of the 
ashes of the burnt heifer on the unclean a 
baptism, Tertullian calls the heathen cer- 



181 

emonies of sprinkling themselves, their tem- 
ples, &;c., baptisms. Athanasius calls the 
placing of John's hand upon the Saviour's 
head a baptism. Gregory Nazianzen, in 
his 39Lh discourse, calls martyrdom, pen- - 
ance and purgation in another life, baptisms. 
Some of these same fathers call the washing 
of the disciples' feet by Christ a baptism. 
How can all this be explained, unless we 
take the word baptism in the sense of reli- 
gious purification ? Anastasius says he 
would not hesitate to call mourning a bap- 
tism. He says that "affliction, with humil- 
ity and silence, is a baptism.^' And the 
reason he assigns is, that "it purifies a 
man." Tertullian calls the water and 
blood that issued from the side of Christ two 
baptisms^ of course not immersions, but pu- 
rifications or purifiers. Maximus, (vol. 2, 
p. 459, Paris, 1675,) says that " sons of 
thunder " means sons of baptism. The ex- 
planation he gives is, that thunder is com- 
posed of water and air, an initiation into the 
mystery of purification. His philosophy is 
faulty and his language involved ; but the 
16* 



182 

passage is sufficient to show that he consid- 
ered purification the proper sense of the 
word baptism. Chrysostom uses it inter- 
changeably with remission and reconcilia- 
tion^ and Cyprian with the words washing and 
cleansing ; all of which requires the sense of 
purification. Josephus also, though not a 
Christian, speaks of John's baptism as a 
purification ; (Ant. lib. 18, cap, 5, sec, 2.) 
Chrysostom, in his 33d Homily, says that 
Christ " calls his cross and death a cup and 
baptism, — a cup, because he readily drank 
it ; baptism, because by it he purified the 
world.'' Theophylact on Matt. 20 : 22, 23, 
says that Jesus " calls his death a baptism, 
as making a purification or expiation (kath- 
artikon) for all of us." So also on Mark 
10: 38, 39, he says that Jesus ** calls his 
cross baptism, as about to make a puiifica- 
tion (katharismon) for sin." Gregory Na- 
zianzen speaks of Christ's baptism in the 
Jordan as bis purification (kat hair omen on) 
in the Jordan. Several fathers call the tears 
of penitence or Y^rayer baptism ^ certainly 
not because suppliants were totally im- 



183 

mersed in them, but because, as Nilus, the 
disciple of Chrysostom, says, ihey are " good 
wash-basins for the soul ;" or, as Gregory 
of Nyssa says, " fountains, by means of 
which you can wash off the spots and pollu- 
tions of your soul.'^ In the passage from 
Origen (by accident ascribed to Cyprian 
on page %5) relative to the baptism of 
the wood, altar and hewn bullock in Eli- 
jah's sacrifice, the sense of purify is ex- 
pressly assigned to baptizo. The passage is 
this : ^' How came you (the Jews) to think 
that Elias, when he should come, would 
baptize? who did not himself baptize the 
wood upon the altar in the days of Ahab, 
although it needed to be purified, but com- 
manded the priests to do it/' Baptism and 
purification are here used interchangeably 
with each other, and the author only means 
to afiirm that the baptizing or purifying of 
the wood on the altar was not performed by 
Elijah himself, but by the priests. 

But this is still not all. The command in 
Isaiah 1 : 16, is a command to wash, make 
clean and put away evil. Justin Martyr, 



184 

Cyril and Hippolytus call it a prophetic in- 
junction of baptism. The promise in Eze- 
kiel 26 : 25, is a promise to sprinkle with 
clean water and to cleanse from filthiness 
and idols. Cyprian, Jerome and others pro- 
nounce it a prediction concerning baptism. 
The prophecy in Isaiah 4 : 4, relates to pu- 
rification by washing, judgment and the 
spirit of burning. Basil, Origen, Eusebius 
and Theodoret call it baptism, which is 
partly accomplished in the present life and 
partly in the life to come. The declaration 
in Psalm 66 : 10, speaks only of the process 
by which metals are freed from dross. One 
writing in the name of Chrysostom calls it a 
baptism :j " for," says he, " as gold or silver 
is purified in the furnace by consuming the 
dross, so a man, placed in the furnace of af- 
fliction, \s purified J^ Malachi 3 : 3, speaks 
only of purifying and purging. Theodoret 
and Cyril of Alexandria speak of. it as a 
prophecy of baptism, and comment upon it . 
as explaining why the Jews demanded of 
John why he baptized, if he was neither 
Elias nor the Christ. And Athanasius says 



185 

explicitly, " The expression, he shall bap- 
tize you with the Holy Ghost, means this, 
that he shall purify you (kathariei hu- 
mas.) Indeed Cyprian has this broad de- 
claration, that " as often as water alone is 
mentioned in the sacred Scriptures, baptism 
is alluded to;" because, says Isidore Hispa- 
lensis, *' water is a purifier^ and is the only 
element that purifies all things. Augustine 
also has this passage, " When we say that 
Christ baptizes, we do not say that he holds 
and washes in water the body of the believ- 
er, but that he invisibly purifies him, and 
not only him, but the whole Church." 

From all this is not the conclusion inevit- 
able, that baptizo, as a religious term, does 
not mean "a total immersion and nothing 
else," nor yet to sprinkle or pour, but to 
purify, without limitation as to mode? Even 
Maimonides, upon whom Dr. Fuller relies so 
much, applies the word baptism to a general 
religious purification. "There are three 
things," says he, " by which the Israelites 
entered into covenant with God, circumcis- 
ion, baptism, and sacrifice. Baptism was 



186 

practiced in the desert before the giving of 
the law ; for God said to Moses ^ sanctify 
THEM.'' (Issure Biah, Perek 13.) Did Mo- 
ses immerse the people ? Certainly not. He 
only commanded them to purify themselves 
by taking care that no defilement w^as on 
them, by abstaining from all fleshly indul- 
gences, and by washing their clothes, re- 
penting of their sins, and lifting their hearts 
to God. And this generdA purification is cited 
as an instance and an evidence of Mosaic 
haptism. Indeed, so thoroughly were some 
of the translators of the Bible convinced that 
to baptize is to purify, that the Saxon Testa- 
ment has John le FuUuhtere, literally, the 
Fuller; and the Icelandic translates baptism 
skim, literally, scouring. 

And indeed, to use the words of Dr, 
Beecher, the idea of purification^ in the 
nature of things, is better adapted to be the 
name of this rite than immersion. It has a 
fitness and versimilitude in all its extensive 
variety of usage, which cause the mind to 
feel the self-evidencing power of truth, as 
producing harmony and agreement in the 



187 

most minute, as well as in the most im- 
portant relations of the various parts of this 
subject to etich other. First, the idea of 
purification is the fundamental idea in the 
whole subject. Second, it is an idea com- 
plete and definite in itself in every sense, 
and needs no adjunct to make it more so. 
Third, it is the soul and centre of a whole 
circle of delightful ideas and words. It 
throws out before the mind a flood of rich 
and glorious thoughts, and is adapted to op- 
erate upon the feelings like a perfect charm. 
To a sinner desiring salvation, what two 
ideas so delightful as forgiveness and puri- 
ty ? Both are condensed in this one word. 
It involves in itself a deliverance from the 
guilt of sin and from its pollution. It is a 
purification from sin in every sense. It is 
purification by the atonement and purifica- 
tion by the truth, — by water and by blood. 
And around these ideas cluster others like- 
wise, of holiness, salvation, eternal joy, eter- 
nal life. No other word can produce such 
delight on the heart and send such a flood of 
light into all the relations of divine truth ;, 



188 

tor purity, in the broad scripture sense, is the 
joy and salvation of man and the crowning 
glory of God. 

Of immersion none of these things are 
true. It is not a fundamental idea in any 
subject or system. By itself it does not con- 
vey any one fixed idea, but depends on its 
adjuncts and varies with them. Immersion ! 
In what ? clean water or filthy ? in a dye- 
fluid or in wine ? Until these questions are 
answered the word is of no use. And with 
the spiritual sense the case is still worse ; 
for common usage limits it in English, Lat- 
in, Greek, and so far as we know, in all 
languages, by its adjuncts, of a kind deno- 
ting calamity or degradation, and never puri- 
ty. It has intimate and firmly-established 
associations with such words as luxury, ease, 
indolence, sloth, cares, anxieties, troubles, 
distresses, sins, pollution, death. We famil- 
iarly speak of immersion and shiking in all 
these j but with their opposites the idea of . 
immersion refuses alliance. Sinking and 
downward motion are naturally allied with 
ideas which, in a moral sense, are depressed 



189 

and debased, and not with such as are ele- 
vated and pure. And for what reason should 
the God of order, purity, harmony and taste 
select an idea for the name of his own be- 
loved rite so alien from it, and reject one in 
every respect so desirable and so ifit ? Who 
does not feel that the name of so delightful 
an idea as purification must be the name of 
the rite ? And who does not rejoice that 
there is proof so unanswerable that such is 
the signification of the word which the Holy 
Ghost every where uses to denote this holy 
Christian sacrament ? 



17 



190 



CHAPTER XU. 

Transitions in tJie meaning of Words— Baptist 
Sophistry — Scriptural hints respecting mode 
in Baptism^ — Baptism by the Holy Ghost — 
Bloody Baptism of Christ — Typical Bah' 
iisms under the Law. 

After what has now been said, it is impos- 
sible for any man, open to receive the truth, 
not to be convinced that the New Testament 
and Christian use of baptizo is to signify a 
religious purifying^ without regard to mode. 
That the sacred and Christian writers have 
used it in this sense, and that with reference 
to purifyings performed in every variety of 
mode, is settled — may we not say, demoiu 
slrated? It is not a matter of analogy or 
inference, but a matter o^ fact, which ten 
thousand proofs that baptizo among the old 
heathen Greeks originally meant to immerse, 
dip, sink and drown cannot at all affect or 
set aside; — a matter o^ fact so fully proven 
and so firmly estahlished that a man might 
as well attempt to turn the course of the 



191 

Mississippi across the rocky mountains, or to 
overthrow the eternal hills, as to undertake 
to strike it from among the fixed verities of 
things. 

Nor should it be thoup^ht strano^e or re- 
markable that a word which once so fre- 
quently meant to dip and plunge has thus 
passed over to signify a religious purifi- 
cation, without regard to the manner of its 
performance. Dr. Beecher has justly re- 
marked that *^ no principle is more univer- 
sally admitted by all sound philologists, than 
that to establish the original and primitive 
meaning of a word is not at all decisive as 
regards its subsequent usages ;" that " it is 
too plain to be denied, that words do often so 
far depart from their primitive meaning as 
entirely to leave out the original idea ;'* and 
that **such transitions are particularly com- 
mon in words of the class of baptize, deno- 
ting action by or with reference to a fluid." 
We will condense a few of his examples. 
Tingo certainly once meant only to immerse 
and dip; then to dye or color, as ordinarily 
performed by immersing the articles to be 



192 

colored ; then to color or stairij without refer- 
ence to mode ; and lastly, it gave rise to the 
English words tinge and tint, in which there 
is not the least thought of imniersion. The 
original idea of wash was simply to cleanse 
by a purifying fluid ; afterward it came to 
signify the application of a superficial color- 
ing, as to white-wash^ yellow-wash, or to 
wash with silver or gold ; and finally, it has 
come into a use where the original idea of 
purity is entirely lost, as when we speak of 
the loashes of a cow- yard or from the streets. 
Let once meant only to hinder ; now it 
means only to 'permit. And similar transi- 
tions may he traced in the words conversa- 
tion, charity, prevent, Slc, Indeed this doc- 
trine of transition in the meaning of words 
is so clear and undeniable that the most 
learned Baptists have not hesitated to adaiit 
it. Mr. Carson says that *^ nothing in the 
history of words is more common than to 
enlarge or diminish their signification. Ideas 
not originally included are often affixed, while 
others drop ideas originally asserted. In 
this way hapto, (the very word from which 



193 

baptize comes,) from signifying mere mode, 
came to be applied to a certain operation 
usually performed in that mode; from signi- 
fying to dip it came to signify to dye by 
dipping, because this was the way in which 
things were usually dyed ; and afterwards, 
from, dyeing ly dipping, it came to denote 
dyeing in any manner. A like process may 
be shown in the history of a thousand other 
words.'^ See Carson on Baptism, p. 44, 
Philadelphia edition, 1850. 

Well then, if this is a process so clear, and 
furnishing so many illustrations, and if hap^ 
to, " from signifying mere mode,^' passed to 
the signification only of an effect produced 
"m any majiner,^' why could not its deriva- 
tive haptizo pass through a similar transition, 
from signifying immersion to the sense of 
cleansing by immersion, and from cleansing 
by immersion to the sense of cleansing '* in 
any manner,^^ to denote only the idea of pu- 
rification ? Reasoning from analogy, or 
from the nature of the subject, there is no- 
thing to prevent such a transition. On the 
other hand. Dr. Beecher has shown that cir- 
17* 



194 

cumstances existed prior to the time of Christ 
rendering such a transition exceedingly prob- 
able. And that baptizo did pass through 
some such transition, or from the beginning 
had associated with it a meaning, so as to 
be employed by the inspired and the early 
Christian writers to denote simply a purifi- 
cation, without limitation as to mode, is 
abundantly proven by the conclusive argu- 
ments presented in the preceding number. 

This one fact then effectually and for ever 
disposes of all Dr. Fuller's quotations from 
the old heathen Greeks to prove that haptizo 
in the New Testament " signifies a total 
immersion and nothing else." If it did 
originally mean to dip, it had acquired the 
additional sense of wash and cleanse long 
before the Saviour's time. Of this all the 
lexicographers are witnesses. The Septua- 
gint, which, according to Dr. Fuller's ac- 
count, was written more than twa hundred 
and fifty years before Christ, uses it in- 
terchangeably with louo, which means to 
wash, without reference to mode. And so it 
is employed in the New Testament, in this 



195 

one fixed and uniform sense of puHJicaHon, 
without limitation as to manner. We chal- 
lenge all the Baptist learning in the world 
to produce from the New Testament one 
single instance in which its signification is 
necessarily limited to immersion. In all 
their multiplied books, tracts and arguments 
on this subject they have never produced 
such an instance. They cannot produce 
such an instance. There is none such in 
existence. 

With characteristic regard for fairness, it 
is the constant habit of Baptist writers to 
treat us and our position as if we held that 
haptizo means to sprinkle or pour. Dr. Ful- 
ler ascribes this to us as our doctrine again 
and again. We deny it, and hurl back his 
statements on this point as unmanly sophis- 
try. We maintain no such thing. This 
would be limiting the word to mode, just like 
himself. We do not say that it never means 
to sprinkle ; Schrevelius and Scapula trans- 
late it by lavo, which often has the sense of 
sprinkling; but our doctrine is, that haptizo 
in its New Testament and Christian sense 



198 

means to purify, without limitation as to mode. 
We do not read, In those days came John 
the sprinkler, or John the pourer, or John the 
DIPPER, but John the purifier ; — not I indeed 
pour you with water unto repentance, nor I 
indeed dip you with water unto repentafice, but 
I indeed purify you with water ; — not There 
standeth one among you who shall sprinkle 
you with the Holy Ghost, or dip you loith the 
Holy Ghost and with fire, but one who shall 
purify you with the Holy Ghost and with 
fire ; — not Fie that believeth and is sprinkled 
or dipped shall be saved, but he that believ- 
eth and is purified shall be saved ; — not Ye 
are sprinkled in Christ's death, or dipped in 
Christ's death, but purified in Christ's death ; 
— not that The fathers were poured unto 
Moses in the cloud, or sprinkled unto Moses 
in the cloud, much less dipped unto Moses 
in the cloud, but purified unto Moses in the 
cloud and in the sea ; — not Go ye and make 
disciples of all nations, pouring them, or 
PLUNGING them, but purifying them in the 
name of the Father, and of the Son, and of 
the Holy Ghost. Only let our position be 



197 

fairly stated, and the Baptist theory will re- 
fute itself. Dr. Fuller sees this, and hence 
his equivocation and sophistry. 

We proceed now to inquire how far Dr, 
Fuller's theory, that the plunging of the 
subject into the element, is requisite to valid 
baptism, is sustained by those incidental ex- 
pressions given by the Bible in connection 
with this point. We do not expect to prove 
that the Scriptures any where lay down any 
one specific mode for the performance of this 
baptismal purification, any more than to find 
inspired direction as to any one specific mode 
of receiving or administering the Lord's 
Supper. The Scriptures no where prescribe 
specific modes for the observance of either of 
these two great Christian sacraments. And 
we call upon Dr. Fuller and all his teachers 
to produce the passage which will confute 
this statement. But still there are some in- 
cidental expressions bearing upon the subject 
of mode to which we desire to direct atten- 
tion. 

Let us look for a moment at what is said 
about the baptism by the Holy Ghost, and 



198 

of the mode of action by which this baptism 
is effected. John's testimony concerning 
Jesus was, " He shall baptize you with the 
Holy Ghost." Jesus himself promised his 
disciples, *' I send the promise of my Father 
upon you ; tarry ye in the city until ye be 
endued loUli "power from on high,^^ '^ Ye shall 
be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many 
days hence ;" Luke 24 : 49, Acts 1 : 5. 
^* And when the day of Pentecost was fully 
come, suddenly there came a sound from 
heaven; . and there appeared unto them 
cloven tongues, like as of fire, and it sat upon 
each of them^ and they were filled with the 
Holy Ghost;" Acts 2 : 1, 2. Peter says'of 
Cornelius and his friends, '^ The Holy Ghost 
FELL on them, as on us at the beginning ;" 
Acts 10:44. "God . . gave them the 
Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us.^' John 
says, " I saw the Spirit descending from 
heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him ;" 
John 1 : 32. Peter says of the baptism of 
Pentecost, ** This is that which was spoken 
by the prophet Joel, . . I will pour out my 
iSpirit.'* " Jesus, having received of the 



199 

Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, haih 
SHED FORTH this which ye now see and 
hear;" Acts 2 : 16, 17, 33. "Peter and 
John prayed for the people of Samaria, that 
ihey might receive the Holy Ghost ; for as 
yet he had fallen upon none of them ;" 
Acts 8 : 15, 16. " God anointed Jesus of 
Nazareth with the Holy Ghost;" Acts 10: 
36. "While Peter yet spake, the Holy 
Ghost FELL ON all them which heard the 
word. And they of the circumcision were 
astonished, . . because that on the Gentiles 
also was poured out the gift of the Holy 
Ghost;" Acts 10 : 44, 45. Paul speaks of 
"the Holy Ghost which he shed on us ;^^ 
Tit. 3 : 6. Peter speaks of the first minis- 
ters as having " preached the gospel, with 
the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven ;" 
1 Peter 1 : 12. And in Ephesians 1:13, 
we have the phrase, " sealed with the Holy 
Spirit." 

Now all this language concerning the 
falling, descending, pouring out, shedding 
forth, falling upon, anointing, sitting on, and 
sealing, describes mode as to the baptisms of 



200 

the Holy Ghost. And what is very remark, 
able, every one of these terms is w^holly at 
war with the idea of immersion. They all 
describe the baptismal element as descending^ 
as being applied to the subject. How, in 
the nature of things, could this be, if bap- 
tism is a plunging of the subject, a total im- 
mersion and nothing else ? If baptizo in- 
cludes mode, and that mode is immersion, then 
the idea of immersion must fit and harmon- 
ize with all these scriptural allusions to 
mode in connection with the subject of bap- 
tism. .That it does not thus fit, the following 
experimentum cruets will show : " This is 
that which was spoken, . I will immerse out 
my Spirit upon all flesh." ^' I saw the Spirit 
immersing from heaven like a dove." " Je- 
sus hath immersed forth this v^hich ye now 
see and hear." "As yet the Holy Ghost 
had immersed upon none of them." " On 
the Gentiles also was immersed out the gift 
of the Holy Ghost." "The Holy Ghost,, 
which he immersed on us." "The Holy 
Ghost immersed down from heaven !" How 
ridiculous and shocking would be such read*- 



201 

ings! And the whole ground of the diffi- 
culty thus exhibited lies in this, that the 
Scriptures contemplate the application of 
the baptismal element to the subject, and 
frame their language accordingly ; but Dr. 
Fuller's theory contemplates the apjjlication 
qf the sxihject to the element. And the lan- 
guage which describes the one operation 
cannot possibly be made to construe with 
that which describes the other. 

So far then as concerns the baptism of the 
Spirit, the doctrine that the subject must be 
plunged into the baptismal element in order 
to be baptized is not only without scriptural 
foundation, but in absolute contradiction to 
every word which the Spirit of God itself 
has employed to describe the mode of one of 
its own operations. The whole description 
implies and relates to affusion. There is 
not one single expression that will tolerate 
the idea of immersion. 

And if the idea o^ affusion is thus divinely 

appropriated as descriptive of the baptism 

by the Holy Ghost, what is more natural 

than to infer that the same mode holds good 

18 



202 

and is agreeable to the divine mind with 
regard to the baptism by water? There is 
necessarily a close resemblance between 
them. In many passages the same expres- 
sions are applied to both. Indeed one is the 
type of the other. And in the absence of 
direct proof to the contrary, are we not 
bound to believe that the mode in one is 
correspondent with the mode in the other I 
When Peter saw the Holy Ghost falling on 
Cornelius and his friends, his mind instantly 
recurred to the baptism of John. ''Then 
remembered I, . . John indeed baptized with 
water, but ye shall be baptized with the Holy 
Ghost." What laws of mental association 
could thus carry him back from the contem- 
plation of the affusion of the Spirit to a water 
baptism, unless that water baptism was per- 
formed by a similar affusion ? 

We look next at the baptism of Christ 
spoken of in Luke 12 : 50, Mark 10 : 38, 
Matt. 20 : 22, 23. This is uniformly un- 
derstood by Origen, Gregory Nazianzen,' 
Augustine, and all the fathers, as a baptism 
of blood. But the Saviour never was totally 



203 

immersed in blood. In the garden he was 
only bedewed with drops oozing from his 
pores. On the cross he was merely stained 
with what trickled from his pierced hands, 
feet and temples, and flowed from his wound- 
ed side. If we understand it of the wrath 
of God which he endured for sinners, that 
wrath is always spoken of as poured out ; 
Ps. 69 : 24, 79 : 6 ; Jer. 10 : 25 ; Ez. 7 : 8, 
21 : 31 ; 2 Chron. 12 : 7 ; Is. 42 : 25; Jer. 
7 : 20 ; Lam. 2:4; Ez. 20 : 33. If we 
understand it of the stripes and iniquities 
which he bore for the world's salvation, 
these things are every where spoken of as 
laid on him ; Is. 53 : 4, 6, 8 ; 1 Pet. 2 : 24* 
And it would be doing violence to the ordi- 
nary construction of language to read the 
Saviour's words as if he had said : " Are ye 
able to be immersed with the immersion I 
am immesred with V^ *' I have an immersion 
to be immersed with." " Can ye be m- 
mersed with the immersion I am iramersed 
ivith?^^ How much more natural and con. 
sistent to understand the question, " Can you 
endure to have laid or poured upon you what 



204 

I have laid upon me ?" So that in regard 
to this baptism, as in regard to the baptism 
by the Spirit, the entire phraseology of the 
Bible contemplates the application of the 
element to the subject in a way answering 
to affusion, and to affusion alone* 

We look next at the relation of the ordi- 
nance of Christian baptism to the old econo- 
my, to see what light can be gathered as to the 
mode of its administration. Whatever Dr. 
Fuller may say to the contrary, the New Tes- 
tament is the development of the Old Testa- 
ment — the flower of which that was the stem 
— the harvest of which that was the seed-time 
— the fu]l-grown man of which that was the 
swaddling infant. All great and sound theo- 
logians, from Paul to the present moment, 
have uniformly so regarded it. Jesus, the 
great theme and substance of the New Tes- 
tament, is the same of whom Moses in the 
law and the prophets did write. And there 
is not one marked particular in all the gos- 
pel that had not its dim beginning in the Old 
Testament. If we take Faith, x\.braham was 
the very father of the faithful, and its most 



205 

illustrious examples are found in the olden 
lime ; Rom. 4 : 11, 10 ; Heb. 11 : — If we 
take the Atonement, the Lamb of God. which 
taketh away sin, was in the old sacrifices 
"slain from the foundation of the world;" 
Rev. 13:8; Luke 24 : 25, 27. If we take 
the Lord's Supper, it was but an extrication 
of the ancient Passover from its typical 
connections with the old covenant, and its 
continuance under forms adapted to the 
transition which has long since been effected 
from prophecy to history ; 1 Cor. b : 7, 
And so we are driven to infer that baptism 
is also in some way developed from germs 
which were planted in the ancient dispensa- 
tion. 

And what we are thus led to infer a priori 
is very clearly taught in ihe New Testa- 
ment. As there was a Mosaic atonement 
and a Mosaic supper, so there were also 
Mosaic baptisms, Paul, in summing up the 
various services of the Levitical economy, 
says that they consisted of ** meats, and 
drinks, and divers baptisbis ;" Heb. 9 : 10. 
What these various baptisms were and how 
18* 



206 

they were performed we have already shown. 
But Paul speaks particularly of some of them 
and gives the mode of their administration. 
He tells us of baptisms by " the blood of 
bulls and of goats, and the ashes of a heifer 

SPRINKLING THE UNCLEAN," which ^' SaUCtU 

fied to the -purifying of the fesh ;^' Heb. 9 : 
13. He tells us also of baptisms by *'the 
Mood of calves and of goats, ivater and scar^ 
let wool, and hyssop sprinkled upon both the 
book and all the people;" Heb. 9 : 19. 
He also designates these things as " signs,'^ 
'* patterns,'^ '' figures for the times then pres- 
ent ;'' Heb. 9 : 9, 23, 24. In these typical 
baptisms the mode is specifically given. 
That mode is the sprinkling of the baptismal 
element upon the subject. If the patterns 
therefore were true, (and when we consider 
that God himself made them, we are bound 
to conclude that they were true,) it follows 
that, in the administration of that higher and 
holier baptism, which these ancient services 
prefigured, sprinkling is an appropriate 
mode, bearing upon it the express sanction 
of God himself. Indeed, when the ancient 



207 

prophet came to speak of the greater simpli- 
city and power of the ordinances which 
Messiah should appoint, these Mosaic bap- 
tisms at once rose before his mind. The 
relation which they bore to what was to 
follow he distinctly foresaw. He notes the 
change which was to be made in the ele- 
ment, from blood and water mingled v^^ith 
ashes, to something more directly symbolic 
of spiritual purity ; but no alteration in the 
manner or mode of its use. And in the 
name of Him who was to come he announced 
to the children of promise, "Then will I 

SPRINKLE CLEAN WATER UPON YOU; and ye 

shall he clean f^ Ez. 36 : 25. We have al- 
ready remarked that the fathers interpreted 
this as well as Ps. 51 : 7, Ts. 4 : 4, Mai. 3: 
3, as predictions concerning the ordinance of 
Christian baptism. 

And in addition to all this the very signi- 
fication of the word baptism, and of the 
sacrament of which it is the name, lays the 
foundation for an inference that plunging is 
not a becoming mode for the administration 
of this rite. We have seen that it is uni- 



208 

formly employed by the Scriptures to denote 
purification. The whole meaning of the or- 
dinance itself points to an inward cleansing 
wrought by the Holy Spirit of God. Im- 
mersion is not a symbol of purity. Its lead- 
ing import is destruction. The sinking of a 
man always signifies degradation. The He- 
brew vvord for immerse is expressly used in 
Job 9 : 31, to denote the very opposite of 
purity. But the application of clean water 
to the subject is one of the liveliest images 
of purification that can be presented to the 
human mind. 

With all these facts before us, how can it 
be possible for any unprejudiced man to 
doubt whether affusion is a proper and di- 
vinely authorized mode of administering the 
holy sacrament of Christian baptism ? Who 
can look at them and in his heart believe 
that where there is no immersion there is no 
baptism, and that the great company of 
Christ's disciples are apostate from their 
Lord because they have not submitted to 
sectarian dictation as to the necessity of be- 
ing plunged under the water? 



209 



CHAPTER XIll. 

Dr, Fullerh efforts to set aside these facts — 
Places where Baptism was performed — 
Pools — Kedron — Enon — John's Baptisms. 

What has now been elicited from the 
Scriptures respecting the mode of baptism 
must of itself be conclusive in favor of affu- 
sion, unless the most positive and command- 
ing reasons to the contrary are produced. 
Let us see then what Baptists have said upon 
this point. 

Dr. Fuller says, " My first argument is 
founded upon the force of the verb haptizoJ' 
But this is a mere begging of the question. 
The force of the word laptizo is the object 
of inquiry and the subject of dispute. And 
for Dr. Fuller to argue that the New Testa- 
ment baptisms were immersions, because the 
word means immerse, and then to conclude 
that the word means immerse because the 
baptisms respecting which it is used were 
immersions, is about as ridiculous a specimen 
of reasoning in a circle as could well be 



210 

found. It speaks badly for a grave doctor 
of divinity, and still worse for the merits of 
his cause. We certainly have proven be- 
yond confutation that the word haptizo, in 
Christian language, denotes a religious pu- 
rifying, without limitation as to mode ; that 
it is applied to religious cleansings, effected 
in every variety of manner ; and that there 
are instances abundant in which it can by no 
possibility mean immersion. We have also 
proven that the intimations as to mode in the 
baptism by the Holy Ghost, in the bloody 
baptism of Christ and in the typical baptisms 
of the law of Moses, all favor affusion, and 
for the most part exclude immersion alto- 
gether. And for Dr. Fuller to argue that 
the New Testament baptisms were immer- 
sions because the word means immerse, 
when the meaning of the word is the point 
of inquiry, is ridiculous and absurd. 

" My second argument," says he, " is 
drawn from the places chosen for haptism.^^ 
That is to say, the places at which the bap- 
tisms of the New Testament were performed 
prove that they were immersions! Well, 
let us see how this is. 



211 

One of the most remarkable baptisms re- 
corded in the Bible was the baptism of the 
three thousand on the day of Pentecost. 
This was performed in the city of Jerusalem, 
Would Dr. Fuller have us believe that the 
city of Jerusalem was a lake, a river, "a 
great conflux of water," a general bathings 
place for the nations of the earth ! Jerusa- 
lem was a mountain city, with no living 
stream or natural sheet of standing water 
sufficient to immerse a man within fifteen 
miles of its location. We even have Bap- 
tist authority for this. And yet the places 
at which the New Testament baptisms were 
performed are to prove to us that they were 
immersions! 

But Dr. Fuller talks learnedly of! cisterns, 
pools and reservoirs, and gravely tells us 
that there were several such in the neigh- 
borhood of Jerusalem ! He mentions Beth- 
esda. But Wilde describes this as " an 
immense, deep, oblong excavation." Rob- 
inson says it is 75 feet deep ! How could 
3,000 be immersed in such a place in one 
day ? Mr. Ewing thinks it doubtful whetiier 



212 

it was possible for more than one or two 
persons to descend into this pool at a time ; 
and Mr. Carson himself concedes, *' If my 
cause obliged me to prove that it admitted 
two, I grant that I could not prove it,^ 
What is said of this pool in John 5 : 1, 4, 
can give us but little that is reliable, inas^ 
much as all critics consider that passage as 
exceedingly obscured and doubtful by spuria 
ous and questionable readings. Bethesda 
certainly was a receptacle for filth, surround- 
ed by porches where sheep were washed, 
and receiving all the drainage of blood and 
offal from the temple. Hammond, Michaelis, 
Kuinol and others attribute its medicinal 
properties to the warm blood and animal 
deposits which came into it in various ways 
from the sacrifices. And when we consider 
that the persons baptized were Jews, purified 
to attend the Pentecostal festival and subject 
to a penalty of seven days' defilement and 
exclusion if they should but touch any life- 
less animal matter, it is simply preposterous 
to suppose for one moment that the threB 
thousand, or any portion of them, weiB 



213 

plunged in such a pit of filth in order to be 
purified into Jesus Christ. 

Besides Bethesda, there was but one other 
open pool, so far as we know, within the walls 
of Jerusalem^ the fish-pool by the fish-market* 
This evidently was also a sort of drain for 
the water and filth which would constantly 
be accumulating where fish for the entire city 
were handled and sold. There is not one word 
of testimony that it ever was a bathing-place. 
Outside of the city, and supplied with a fee- 
ble, irregular stream from under the wall, 
was the pool of Siloam, described by Lynch 
as *' a deep, oblong pit.'' Its depth was at 
least 19 feet. It was a place about as much 
adapted to immerse in as our ordinary cis- 
terns and wells. As to the upper and lower 
pools of Gihon and the pool of ITezekiah, all 
of which were some distance from the city, 
it is the uniform testimony of travelers that 
they are ever dry, except in seasons of rain. 
The celebrated pools of Solomon, which 
supplied water to the citizens of Jerusalem, 
were about twelve miles from the city. And 
what is very unfortunate for the Baptist the- 
19 



214 

ory, the account of the haptisrn of the 3,000 
says not a word about cisterns, pools, reser- 
voirs, baptisteries, or any thing of the sort ; 
no, nor one word from which to infer that 
the awakened multitudes ever removed from 
the spot on which they received their convic- 
tions until after their baptism had been per- 
formed. Plenty of pools and reservoirs at 
Jerusalem ! and yet Dr. Fuller makes John 
take all its inhabitants out to Enon to find 
water enough to immerse them ! 

Seeing, however, that his cause is so hope- 
less in connection with the pools^ our author 
directs attention to the little brook Kedron, 
as furnishing '^ abundant wafer,^^ But un- 
fortunately again, nine months in the year 
Kedron is dry! So says Voltaire, ^o says 
Kitto in his Natural History of Palestine. 
When Spencer visited it it was dry. So 
when Wilde saw it. So also when Stevens 
saw it. Indeed Mr. Samson, himself a Bap- 
tist, whose wonderful personal observations 
about Jerusalem are greatly relied on by the 
editor of '' The True Union,^' remarks that 
*' The hrook Kedron, as the original term 



215 

indicates, is nothing hit the bed through which 
the rains of winter drain off between the 
eastern wall of the city and Mount Olivet; 
and its channel is therefore dry in early 
spring, several weeks before the period in 
the month of June when the feast of Pen- 
tecost occurred ;" Baptismal Tracts for the 
Times, p. 16. So that the resort to Kedron 
is even more desperate than resort to the 
pools. 

Dr. Fuller sees that it will not answer 
for him to leave matters in such an un- 
favorable posture. He must needs give 
them a better gloss, though he should have 
to resort to his old expedient of altering the 
sense of the record itself. On page 77 he 
solemnly declares that ^'it is no where said 
(of the 8,000) that they were baptized in one 
day P'' Let the reader then take his Bible 
and examine the second chapter of Acts. 
A solemn scene is there spread before us. 
Peter, just filled with the Holy Ghost, stands 
forth as the preacher of Jesus to listening 
thousands. His hearers melt under his 
burning words and call out to know what 



216 

they must do. " Peter said unto them, re- 
pent and he baptized^ every one of you." 
" Then " — not in the course of a few days 
as they could find places to immerse in — but 
^^ THEN "—men oun — in the course of the 
transaction then present — in immediate con- 
tinuance of what went before — " Then they 
that gladly received his word were baptized ; 
AND THE SAME DAY there Were added to them 
about three thousand souls.'' Of course none 
were added to the disciples but those who 
gladly received Peter's word, and baptism 
was the divinely appointed method by means 
of which men were to be added to the list of 
Christ's acknowledged disciples. And yet 
they that gladly received his word were 
" THEN " baptized, " and the same dav there 
were added to them about .3,000 souls." If 
this does not mean that they were all bap- 
tized in one day, it is useless to rely upon 
language as a medium of communication. 

So far then from proving that the baptism 
of the 3,000 was performed by immersion, 
the place and circumstances lead us inevi- 
tably to conclude that it was done in some 



217 

much more convenient and summary man- 
ner. The whole occurrence was sudden, 
unexpected and without previous forethought 
or preparation for the exigencies which must 
have arisen upon the supposition that the 
subjects were all to be immersed. There 
was no water in or about Jerusalem for the 
immediate immersion of such multitudes. 
There were but eleven or twelve present 
who had received the ministerial commission 
to baptize and that were competent adminis- 
trators of this sacrament. It must have been 
late in the day when the baptizing com- 
menced. Peter began his discourse about 
nine o'clock, (Acts 2 : 15,) it was of long con- 
tinuance, consisting of '* many other words '' 
more than are on record, (2 : 40 ;) and the 
confusion incident upon conducting such a 
multitude to a place fit for immersion must 
have consumed much lime and greatly bin- 
dered the speedy execution of the work. " So 
that, though Dr. Fuller may make himself 
merry over Dr. Kurtz's arithmetical process, 
he must remember that ^' figures do not lie," 
and that it is mathemaUcaJIy demonstrable 
19* 



218 

that no twelve men under heaven could 
have immersed 3,000 in the limited time 
and amid the embarrassing circumstances in 
which that baptism certainly was performed. 
And if the thing was so plain and easy as he 
pretends, if he is not himself overcome by 
the numerous impossibilities which hamper 
and cripple the immersion theory, we ask 
him why he is so anxious to make it appear, 
even at the expense of perverting the record, 
that the 3,000 were not baptized in one day ? 
Why take to a resort so extreme, unless 
conscious that his cause is lost without it? 
Look next at the case of the jailor and his 
family; Acts 16: — They were baptized 
in a prison at Philippi. Dr Fuller tells us 
that Philippi was a place of springs. Per- 
haps he may yet discover that it was a place 
of reservoirs and pools ! But the question 
is, were these ^'confluxes of water" in the 
jail, where the baptism occurred ? and was 
the jail such a place as to beget the belief 
that said baptism was performed by immer- 
sion ? He gives it as his opinion, notwith- 
standing the springs, that Paul took the jailor 



219 

slnd his family out at midnight to some river! 
He seems to forget Paul's exhaustion from 
stripes, chains, fasting, vigils and prayers ; 
and that Paul peremptorily refused to leave 
the prison until he was publicly taken out 
by the authorities that thrust him in, (v. 37 ;) 
and that the account says the baptism took 
place during the exciting scenes of the night 
parachrema — on the spot. ^' Indeed," says 
Dr. Clarke, ''all the circumstances of the 
case, the dead of the night, the general agi- 
tation, the necessity of dispatch, and the 
words of the text, all disprove that there was 
any immersion »^^ 

Look at the baptism of Saul of Tarsus. 
This was performed in the sick-chamher; at 
least so the Evangelist leaves us to infer. 
For three days this smitten persecutor lay, 
a blind, exhausted and helpless invalid, upon 
his bed. By direction of God Ananias came 
to him, and stated to him his mission, and 
touched him, and he arose from his couch 
and was baptized, and meat was given him, 
and he was strengthened ; Acts 19:1, 19. 
What room is here to infer immersion ? 



220 

Look at the case of the Eunuch. He was 
baptized in his journey through the desert. 
Is a desert a place of " confluxes of water ?" 
Does the place here argue imnrjersion ? The 
water at which it was done is described by 
Eusebius, Jerome, Reland, and even Mr, 
Samson, as a fountain boiling up at the foot 
of a hill and absorbed again by the sanne 
soil from which it springs. How absurd to 
talk of immersion as argued from such a 
locality! Mr. Samson, from personal obser- 
vation of the place, finds it impossible to get 
through with the immersion theory without 
supposing some artificial reservoir or other 
fixture. — (Baptismal Tracts, p. 160.) What 
a mania for cistern-digging must have pos- 
sessed these Jews, that they should fill even 
the desert with pools ! 

Cornelius and his friends were most likely 
baptized in his own house. The language 
of Peter, *^ Can any man forbid water, that 
these should not be baptized?" indicates 
with a good degree of certainty that no more 
water was used than what could be conve^ 
niently conveyed to him. How can this 
argue immersion ? 



221 • 

But John^s haptism f Aye, John^s bap- 
tism / But John's baptism was not Christian 
baptism. All theologians agree to this. 
Baptists themselves have been forced to 
concede it. Robert Hall was a Baptist, a 
scholar and a full-hearted man of God. He 
gives us a long and unanswerable argument, 
shov/ing that John's baptism was a wholly 
different thing from the ordinance instituted 
by Jesus Christ. See his Works, vol. I, p» 
294. Mr. Carson says the two were '' es- 
sentially difftrenU^ Nevertheless, Dr. Fuller 
argues that John baptized in (at) Jordan; 
that he must therefore have immersed the 
people in the water; and that therefore 
all other baptisms were immersions and 
nothing else ! As well might he argue, 
that as "John baptized in the wilderness," 
he immersed the people in the sand ; and 
that therefore all baptisms are immersions 
in the sand ! John also baptized " in Beth" 
abara^ leyond Jordan^ This is the name 
of a town. Where it was located is not 
precisely known. Lightfoot says '* it was 
situated in the Scythopolitan country, where 



222 

the Jews dwelt among the Syropheni- 
cians." It certainly was neither a lake, 
nor a pool, nor a river; and how can it 
prove that John immersed? John also bap- 
tized ''in or at Enon. near to Salim,^^ Enon 
means the fountain of On, And if deep 
water, convenient for immersion, was the 
object of the baptizer in selecting this spot 
for his operations, why did he leave the river 
for a mere spring? Dr. Fuller thinks it 
very ridiculous to suppose that mills driven 
by water are built upon firm streams merely 
to supply drink for the people who may visit 
them with their horses and mules ! But 
when we see these same establishments per- 
forming their offices with equal facility where 
there are no firm streams, is it not equally 
ridiculous to insist that they are water-mills 
at all ? 

But we are told, ** John was baptizing in 
or at Enon, because there were hiidata polla, 
many waters there." It is indeed not a little 
amusing to see how Baptist writers comment 
upon this phrase. Dr. Fuller wishes to 
make it appear that liudala polla means " a 



great conflux of water." Me quotes a num- 
ber of passages, such as " Bis voice was as 
the sound of many waters ;^' '- 1 heard a voice 
from heaven, as the voice of ma?}^ waters;^' 
** The Lord is mightier than the noise of 
many waiers^yea, than the waves of the seaj^^ 
*' The noise of iheir wings was as the noise 
of many waters, as the voice of the Almighty J^ 
Dr. Ryland says thai the phrase indicates a 
body of water the sound of which resembles 
mighty thunderings, the sound of a cataract 
or the roaring of the sea, and that it is a 
Hebraism corresponding with mim rahi?n, 
which signifies many waters, such as the 
waves of the sea. What an array! If we 
were to listen to these Baptist commentators, 
Niagara itself is but '' a tinkling rill " com- 
pared with this fountain of On, between 
Salim and the Jordan ! Well may we ex- 
claim, "Happy jE/i072.' ennobled by such 
mighty associations, by such magnificent 
alliances!" But, after all, the question nar- 
rows itself down to one of simple geography. 
Was there ever issuing from one spring a 
body of water forming many parts in any 



224 

district of the land of Judea, in any locality 
accessible to John the Baptist, by which 
these allusions to mighty thunders, cataracts 
and seas can in the remotest degree be justi- 
fied ? Such a spring would have been the 
wonder of Judea and of the world. The 
memory of it could not have perished. The 
traces of it would still be seen, and some 
faint echoes of its thunders would certainly 
have reached our times. And yet Dr. Ful- 
ler says, " / grieve to find several writers 
venturing to assert that the location of Enon 
is known f^' p. 65. Alas! that such a won- 
der in nature should have thus perished, 
without leaving a trace behind it ! European 
and American travelers have explored the 
Jordan from Tiberias to the Dead Sea, but 
none of them have ever seen any thing of 
this wonderful discharge of waters. In a 
whole day's journey down the Jordan, from 
the region of Scythopolis, (eight miles south 
of which Enon is said to have been located,). 
Lieut. Lynch found no streams emptying 
into the Jordan, except such as scarcely rose 
in consequence above mere trickling rivu- 



225 

lets. In the time of Napoleon the French 
had a corps of horse at Scythopolis, and 
roamed the country down the Jordan, par 
ticularly exploring it on the West, but noiho 
ing did they find answering to the Baptist 
Enon. All that history has preserved re- 
specting this wonderful fountain is what 
Jerome repeats from Eusebius, that it was 
eight miles from Scythopolis, south, between 
Salim and the Jordan. Calmet knows noth™ 
ing about it. And from the time of Israel's 
exodus to the present hour such a thunder- 
ing fountain as Drs. Fuller and Ryland 
speak of has remained unknown to our ablest 
geographers, to our most adventurous and 
observant travelers, and to our most inquis- 
ilive men. It is enough to say, there never 
was such an Enon. And until Dr. Fuller 
produces some accurate geographical de- 
scription of this fountain of On, to persist in 
comparing it with the Euphrates, the Tigris, 
Niagara and mighty thunderings, is indeed 
" sinning by excess." 

But does not John say, " there was much 
water there ? So the English Bible reads, 
20 



220 

In the original, however, the phrase is hiidafa 
polla, which Bezia and Prof. Stuart render 
^^ many streams or rivuleis,^^ Dr. Fuller 
says that " hudor ^^ never n>eans " streamsJ^ 
But Donegan says it is from the word huo, 
to loet^ to asperse, to rain, and that it often 
signifies only the drops of falling rain ! De- 
mosthenes against Caliieles uses \i in this 
sense. And if Dr. Fuller will take \XiQ 
Septuagint and turn to 2 Kings 2 : 19, he 
will find '•^liudata^^ applied to waters which 
Maundrell describes in these words : '^ They 
are at present received in a basin, about 
nine or ten paces long and \ive or six broad^ 
and thence issuing out in good plenty, divide 
themsehes into several small streams^ dis- 
persing their refreshment to all the field and 
rendering it exceedingly fruitful." Taylor's 
Facts and Evidences, p. itO. We would 
therefore be fully authorized to adopt the 
reading, " John was baptizing at the fountain 
of On, because there were many streams 
there ;" that is^, not many streams to immerse 
in, but many streamlets of fountain water, 
better suited than the Jordan to meet the 



227 

wants of the vast multitudes who came to 
hear the prophet's preaching. 

But Dr. Ryland tells us that hudata polla 
is a Hebraism equivalent to mim rahim, and 
challenges the production of proof that mifn 
rahim is ever used as synonymous with small 
streams. But what is his challenge worth? 
In Numbers 24 : 7, this phrase is used to 
denote water '^poured out of huckets.^' In 
Ezekiel 19 : 10, it is used to denote the 
small streams wfiich water vineyards. What 
thundering confluxes of water these must 
have been ! 

As there is no testimony therefore that the 
waters at Enon were at all adapted to im- 
mersion, the great drift of proof going to 
show that it was a place of rivulets of spring 
zoater, and not of thundering cataracts, we 
demand of the Baptists to give a reason why 
John left the river, where alone facilities for 
immersion were found ? Does not the fact 
of such a change, from the great river to 
mere fountain streamlets, prove that John's 
baptisms were not by immersion ? 

It is useless, however, to pursue this point 



228 

any further. John's baptism, was, at any • 
rate, not our Christian sacrament ; and there 
is no proof under heaven that Enon was 
any thing more than a fountain, or that the 
*' many waters there " were any thing more 
than small streams issuing from the same or 
contiguous sources. Indeed if the Evan- 
gelist's mind had been directed to the waters 
of Enon by the idea of immersion, it is rea- 
sonable to suppose that. he would rather have 
spoken of the depth and magnitude of one 
stream than thus have called off the attention 
to many. 

Is it not also exceedingly strange that 
Baptists should lay so much stress on the 
^' much water" at Enon, while they pretend 
to find enough in Jerusalem to immerse 
three thousand converts in a small part of 
one day 1 

How John performed his baptisms cannot 
be decided with positive certainty; but there 
are a few facts bearing upon the subject, 
which, if assigned their proper weight, pre- 
sent a strong and commanding presumption 
that it was not by immersion. 



229 

1. Although he for the most part performed 
his ceremony of purification where there was 
plenty of water, there is no proof that he ever 
went into the water to do it. The truth of 
this remark is so clear that the great Baptist 
champion, Mr. Carson, is compelled to con- 
cede it. "I think," says he, ''there is no 
reason to believe that John the Baptist usually 
went into the water in baptizing." And in 
order to make out immersion, he is driven to 
an invention of fancy, which thinking people 
must regard as a surrender of the cause. 
"The accounts lead me to conclude," says 
he, " that John chose some place on the edge 
of the Jordan, that admitted the immersion of 
the person baptized while the baptizer re- 
mained on the margin /" and that hence 
*Hhere is no ground for the jest that John 
the Baptist was an amphibious animal." 
But in trying to avoid Scylla he has struck 
upon Charybdis. Who ever heard of a 
Baptist preacher administering his immer- 
sions without going into the water with his 
. subjects? How can one man immerse an. 
other in water the surface of which is be- 
20* 



230 

iieath his feet? And if John could not have 
endured the annphibious life of going into the 
water with each of his multitudinous candi- 
dates, common sense will teach every man 
that he could not possibly have held out in 
the sort of operation assigned to him by the 
boasted '^perspicacity'' of Mr. Carson. 

2. In all that is said about John's baptiz- 
ing, and of the multitudes of all cla.<^ses who 
were baptized by him, there is not one even 
remote allusion to those preparations which 
immersion would have called for. Upon 
this point we prefer to express ourselves in 
the language of one who was himself for 
years a Baptist minister : ^' Every one who 
has been accustomed to baptize by immer- 
sion must certainly know that it is necessary, 
with respect to decency and safety, to change 
the dresses and to have separate apartments 
for men and women. This is evidently ne- 
cessary, whether we baptize in a river or in 
a baptistery. Now it is certain that, al- 
though we read of many baptizings, there 
is not the least intimation given either of 
changing the dress or of any suitable ac- 



231 

commodation for the different sexes.'' This 
is true with reference to all the baptisms 
recorded in the New Testa mento ''When 
our Lord washed his disciples' feet, it is said 
he laid aside his garments. And Luke, 
speaking of those who stoned Stephen, says. 
They laid down their clothes at a young 
man's feet, whose name was Saul. Now if 
the Scriptures take notice of the putting off 
of garments for the purpose of washing feet 
and stoning a man, how comes it to pass that 
as thousands, upon supposition they were 
baptized by immersion, must eniirely have 
changed their garments, or have done worse, 
the Scriptures should not drop a single hint 
about it?" — Edwards on Baptism, p, 193. 
And " if the act of baptizing," says Mr. 
Ewing, " had consisted of immersing the 
subject in water, there would surely have 
been some allusion to the lowering of his 
body in that supine direction, which is, I 
believe, commonly observed for the purpose 
of bringing it under the surface ; some al- 
lusion also to that stooping attitude which is 
at the same time necessary on the part of 



232 

the immerser," especially if he stood on the 
shore. "But there is nothing of this kind 
to be found in all the Scriptures, either in 
the accompanying phraseology or in the 
name of the ordinance itself." Mr. Carson 
himself admits, "I do not know a single 
reference of the kind." 

3. The manner in which John, in Matt. 
3:11, speaks of his baptism in comparison 
with the Saviour's baptism of the Spirit, 
is such as to discountenance the idea of 
immersion. "I indeed baptize you with 
water ; he shall baptize you with the Holy 
Ghost and with fire." He uses precisely 
the same phraseology with regard to his own 
baptism that he uses respecting the baptism 
by the Holy Ghost. We have already seen 
that the baptism by the Holy Ghost is uni- 
formly spoken of as being done by the pour-' 
ing out^ shedding forth and falling of the 
baptismal element upon the subject. The 
inference therefore is legitimate and strong, 
that the mode of action was the same in 
John's baptism. The very word with shows 
that he applied the water to the subject, and 
lot the subject to the water. 



233 

But Dr. Fuller very learnedly tells us 
that in the original of this passage the word 
translated with is en, and means m, ^'in 
water," '' in the Holy Ghost," ''in fire." But 
such a criticism is simply ridiculous. All 
the lexicographers tell us that ew, with a 
substantive signifying the instrument or 
cause, always means with and nothing else. 
Dr. Campbell agrees that it means with. 
Even Mr. Carson, whose authority Dr. Ful- 
ler cannot feel himself very free to set aside, 
says, '^ en may be translated imihJ^ " It 
signifies with in classical Greek, as well as 
in the Septuagint or New Testament. It is 
also as freely used with this verb (haptizo) 
in the heathen authors as in the Scriptures, 
To convince any one of this it is necessary 
only to look over the examples which I have 
produced, both with respect to hapto and 
haptizo ;^^ Carson on Bap., pp. 122, 132. 
And if Dr. Fuller's criticism is to stand, then 
we must read that the servant in Matthew 
traded in his talents, not with them ; that 
Christ cast out devils in the finger of God, 
not wilh the finger of God ; that Paul pro- 



S34 

posed to visit Corinth in a rod, not loith a 
rod ; that the Lord shall descend from heav- 
en in the trump, not with the trump ; and 
that the man-child in the Apocalypse is to 
rule all nations in a rod of iron, not with a 
rod of iron ! 

And if we are asked why we render en 
hiidaii, with water, and en to Jordane, at the 
Jordan 7 our answer is ready. In the first 
instance en is joined with a substantive sig- 
nifying iTieans or cause^ in the other with 
one denoting place. We read, '^ My servant 
lieth at home sick,'' not in home ; God set 
Jesus ^' at his own right hand in the heaven- 
ly places," not in his own right hand \ Christ 
accomplished his decease ^^ at Jerusalem," 
not in Jerusalem, for he " suffered without 
the gate ;" John leaned on the Saviour's 
breast ^^ at supper," not in supper; Paul in 
his voyage '* arrived at Samos and tarried at 
Trogylliura," certainly not in Trogyllium, 
for how could a vessel anchor in a promon 
tory ? Indeed Matthiae observes that en is 
used with names of places when proximity 
alone is implied. We are therefore fully 



authorized to say that John baptized wrtfl 
water, at the Jordan ; a phraseology which 
leaves no room for the inference that he im- 
mersed. 

4. It is an indisputable fact, that the early 
Christians have represented John as baptiz- 
^^E ^y (effusion. We now have before us a 
copy of a representation in Mosaic of the 
baptism of Christ, preserved in the church 
in Cosmedin, at Ravenna, which was erected 
in the year 401. It presents the Saviour 
standing in the margin of the Jordan, par- 
tially in the water, and John on a rock, with 
a shell in his hB.n^^ pouring water on the 
Redeemer's head. We have before us an- 
other, from the church on the Via Ostiensis, 
at Rome. The picture itself is on a plate 
of brass, partly engraved and partly in re- 
lief. The door to which it is affixed bears 
date 1070 ; but the plate is much older than 
the door, and from the inscriptions in Greek, 
is manifestly of Greek origin and agreed to 
be of very ancient workmanship. In this 
picture Christ is not even in the water, but 
standing near the stream, v/hilst John with 
a shell is pouring water on his head. Form- 



236 

ing the centre-piece of the dome of a baptist- 
ery at Ravenna, which was built and dec- 
orated in the year 454, we have another 
representation of the baptism of Christ. As 
in the one first named, he is standing par- 
tially in the water, and John, from a rock 
above, is pouring out water on his head. 0f 
the genuineness and antiquity of these pic- 
tures there can be no reasonable doubt. 
And if those who made them and assigned 
them their places, (though believed ordina- 
rily to have performed their own baptisms 
by immersion,) entertained it as their fixed 
belief, at this early period, that John bap- 
tized hy affusion, are we not justified in 
presuming that he really did baptize some- 
thing after the mode which they have repre- 
sented in his baptism of Christ ? 

But Dr. Fuller argues that this cannot be, 
because the record states that " Jesus, when 
he was baptized, went up straightway out of 
(apo) the water," How could he have 
come ''out of the water" unless he had been 
in it ? But even if he had been in ity that 
does not prove that he was under it. The 
young man in Tobit was in the river, but 



237 

not under the water. Dr. Fuller often goes 
into the water and comes out of it without 
being under iL This itself would be a sufR- 
cient answer to the objection, though we are 
not necessitated to rest upon it. Dr, Fuller 
certainly will not contend that apo ordinarily 
means out of, much less from under. His 
master, of Tubbermore, says, " The proper 
translation of apo is from, and not out of. I 
deny that it ever signifies out of ;" Carson on 
Bapt., pp. 126, 337. Jesus therefore only 
went up from the water, not out of it. Nay; 
more, if apo never means out of the demon- 
stration is irresistible that John's baptism 
was by affusion, and not by immersion ; for 
if Jesus did not come out of the water, he 
was not even in it, much less imder ito 

Is it not utterly unwarrantable then for 
any man to assert that the baptisms of John 
were total immersions ? And if John's bap- 
tisms in the vicinity of the river were not im- 
mersions, the Scriptures speak of no other 
baptisms where it would be less than in- 
sanity to pretend to argue immersion from 
the places at which they were performed. 
21 



238 



CHAPTER XIV. 

Prepositions eis and ek — Allusions to Bap- 
tism — Passage of the Red Sea — Typical 
Baptism of JYoah in the Ark — Burial in 
Christ'^s death. 

We come now to notice Dr. Fuller's third 
and fifth arguments. The fourth we are at 
a loss to comprehend. He says, " It is based 
upon the act performed in haptizingJ^ What 
act? His theory admits no act but immer- 
sion. And to assert that immersion is im- 
mersion, and that therefore baptism is im- 
mersion, is a method of argumentation so far 
above our capacity that we leave it with the 
ex-lawyer from whom it comes, to be ad- 
mired by those of his friends who may be 
able to sound its mysterious depths. It far 
transcends all our science. We take his 
third and fifth arguments together, because, 
though introduced v/ith imposing pomp, they 
both turn upon the meaning of two little 
Greek prepositions, eis and ek. He tells us 



239 

that eis means into, and ek^ out of; that Phil- 
ip and the Eunuch " went down both (eis) 
into the water" and came up " (ek) out of 
the water;" and that therefore the Eunuch 
must have been immersed. 

Now if we were even to admit his prem- 
ises, his conclusion would not follow. We 
have often gone into the water, and as often 
come out of the water, without having been 
immersed. Indeed the eis and the ek apply 
here as well to Philip as to the Eunuch ; 
and if eis and ek are sufficient to prove that 
the Eunuch went under the water, they must 
prove that Philip also went under the water, 
which would be a little more than agreeable 
either to Dr. Fuller's theory or practice. 
But we dispute that eis and ek are limited to 
the siojnifications he has assie-ned to them. 
If ei5 always means into, then we must read, 
*^The men of Nineveh repented into the 
preaching of Jonas," not at the preaching ; 
Jesus went through the cities and villages 
"journeying in Jerusalem," not towards Je- 
rusalem ; the healed demoniac of Gadara was 
sent into his friends, not to his friends ; Mary 



240 

went " into the grave to weep/' not unto the 
grave ; the women, at the apparition of an- 
gels, " bowed down their faces into the 
earth," not to the earth ; Mary " fell down 
into Jesas' feet," not at his feet ; Jesus came 
into the grave of Lazarus, not " ^o the 
grave ;" Mary Magdalene came into the 
sepulchre, not '' unto the sepulchre ;" Paul's 
journey from Puteoli was into Rome, not 
" toward. Rome ;" Abraham staggered not 
into the promises of God, not " he staggered 
not at the promises of God ;" " Let us go 
into Jordan^ and take thence every man a 
beam, and let us make us a place there 
where we may dwell," not let us go unto 
Jordan. But why multiply examples ? Mr. 
Carson says, " I am far from denying that 
eis sometimes signifies unto, . Tt applies 
when the thing in motion enters within the 
object to which it refers. There are in- 
stances, however, in which the motion ends 
AT the object ;^^ p. 13L It is utterly futile 
therefore for Baptists to attempt to argue im- 
mersion from this word. 
^But " eA', with a verb of motion, always 



241 

signifies out of.^^ So says Dr. Fuller; but 
we have ere this learned that his announce- 
ments in connection with this subject are 
neither wonderful for truth nor final in au- 
thority. In John 13 : 4, it is said of Jesus, 
** He riseth up from supper." Does this 
mean out of supper? In Acts 12: 7, it is 
said of the imprisoned Peter, " His chains 
fell 0^ from his hands." Does this mean 
that the chains fell out of his hands ? In 
John 20 : 1, Mary saw "the stone taken 
from the sepulchre." Does this meanow^o/* 
the sepulchre? How can Dr. Fuller take 
out of a thing what never was in it ? See 
Matt. 27: 60, and Mark 15: 46. In Luke 
12: 36, the Saviour speaks of returning 
from the wedding. Did he mean out of the 
wedding ? The same ek is used to signify 
the drawing of a line from a mathematical 
point, as ''from the pole of a circle." Will 
common sense tolerate the idea of getting 
into or coming out of di mathematical point? 
The same word is used in the sentence 
where the artist is said to " form men from 
the extremity of the foot." Is there any 
21* 



242 

such thing as forming men out of the ex- 
tremity of the foot? In all these instances 
ek is joined with verbs of motion, and yet it 
will receive only the sense of apo, from. 
Where then is Dr. Fuller's assertion ? And 
how can ek, in the account of the baptism of 
the Eunuch, prove that eis there means any 
thing more than unto; or that Philip and 
the Eunuch did not merely come from the 
water and not out of ill 

Add now but two facts, and the necessity 
for rendering eis and ek unto Siud from in this 
account, or at least of so interpreting them 
as to exclude the idea of immersion, will 
distinctly appear. First, the passage which 
Philip expounded, the exposition of which 
led the Eunuch to ask to be baptized, con- 
tains a Messianic prophecy which some of 
the fathers understood of baptism, and which 
Philip doubtless so interpreted at the time. 
Else how could the Eunuch have been made 
to understand any thing about baptism ? 
And in that vexy prediction mode is indi- 
cated. ^' So shall he (the Messiah) sprin- 
kle many nations.'^'' And would it not be 



243 

unreasonably violent to suppose that the 
preacher did contrary to the very text before 
hini ? But secondly^ if any reliance is to be 
placed in the accounts of Eusebius and Je- 
ronie, sustained as they have been by naod- 
ern researches and a general tradition that 
reaches back to the apostles' times, there 
was not vi^ater enough there to immerse the 
Eunuch in. It was not a river or a pool, but 
a small spring in a desert region, the waters 
of which were swallowed up again by the 
very soil from which they proceeded. And 
to persist in arguing for immersion on the 
precarious ground of two indefinite little 
prepositions, where it is almost certain that 
no' immersion could by any means have 
taken place, is to exalt the empire of zeal 
over reason, truth and common sense. And 
though Dr. Fuller may continue to denounce 
us as '^ hopeless victims of hydrophobia," is 
it not better to be rationally hydrophohic than 
insanely aquatic ? 

Dr. Fuller's next resort is to what he calls 
*^ allusions to baptism." Some of the pas- 
sages quoted under this head we have al- 



244 

ready disposed of, and we deem it unimport- 
ant to dwell long on the rest. The first 
we notice is where Paul speaks of the fath- 
ers as '' all baptized unto Moses in the cloud 
and in the sea." We deny that there was 
any immersion in this case. Indeed if bap- 
tism is immersion, then the Egyptians were 
baptized and not the Israelites, and the sa- 
cred record stands contradicted. The chil- 
dren of Israel passed through the sea ''upon 
dry ground.'^^ They were neither dipped in 
the cloud nor plunged in the water. And if 
Paul had designed by this language to set 
forth the outward mode of administering 
Christian baptism, upon Dr. Fuller's theory, 
he certainly selected the wrong parties for 
his examples ; for the hosts of Pharaoh really 
were immersed, which is not true of the fol- 
lowers of Moses. Moreover, Christian bap- 
tism demands an administrator; but there 
was none in the case referred to. Christian 
baptism requires the element to be brought 
in contact vvith the subject; but the Israelites 
were not touched by wave or cloud. And 
so far. as baptism consists of iimnersion^ we 



245 

are forced to conclude that the passage of 
the Red Sea was no baptism. That passage 
was a figure of Christian baptism in its ina- 
port — in its nnoral, practical and theological 
significance, and not in the mode of its per- 
formance. Augustine calls it a salvation hy 
water^ and for that reason it is called a bap- 
tism. It was a glorious deliverance of the 
ancient Israelites from the hands of their 
enemies ; a solemn separation between them 
and their heathen associations ; a mysterious 
consecration of God's own chosen to his ex- 
clusive service ; a miraculous regeneration^ 
in which a new and holy nation was born ; 
an impressive seal of God's presence and 
covenant with his people. All these are 
things to be said of the holy sacrament of 
Christian baptism now ; and it is in these 
respects, and^^in these alone, that the passage 
through the Red Sea is called a baptism. It 
no more proves that we must be immersed 
in order to be baptized than it proves that 
we must be sprinkled with mists of spray, 
such as doubtless might have been seen fall- 
ing into that wonderful pathway from the 
boisterous surges above. 



246 

Dr. Fuller's next reference is to 1 Peter 
3 : 20, 21, where the apostle speaks of " The 
ark . . wherein few, that is, eight souls, 
were saved by water, the figure according 
to which baptism doth now save us." But 
where is the immersion in this case ? Noah 
and those saved with him were not im- 
mersed. By that flood they were purified 
from the wicked and consecrated as the new 
seed to re-populate the earth ; but they rode 
above it unharmed by the shoreless waves 
which overwhelmed and drowned all else of 
human kind. They alone of all men were 
not immersed ; and to make that gracious 
exemption a figure of immersion, is figuring 
at a premium! The likeness which Peter 
finds in the ark in which Noah was saved 
we interpret of the spiritual significance of 
baptism, of the purification cff the soul by 
God's Spirit, and its salvation from the judg- 
ments which shall overwhelm the wicked. 
But as Dr. Fuller has introduced it as proof 
of mode, he is bound by the logical conser 
quences of his own premises. And who 
does not see that if the fio^ure of which the 



247 

apostle speaks refers to modey the case, of 
Noah absolutely excludes immersion and es- 
tablishes affusion as the only legitimate way ? 
The rains fell upon the ark from above, but 
the waves never overflowed it from below. 
Dr. Fuller refers us next to Rom. 6 : 3, 
5j and Col. 2:12. In these words we have 
a sublime description of the wonderful effi- 
cacy of the gospel upon the inner being of 
believers, and of a condition of things re« 
suiting from their oneness with Christ which 
amounts to an actual reproduction of his 
crucifixion, death, burial and resurrection in 
the experiences of their hearts. But sub- 
lime and spiritual as these Scriptures are, 
the attempt has been made to harness them 
down as the mere dray horses to drag out of 
the mire a hopeless sectarian cause. Dr. 
Fuller so robs them of their literal force and 
meaning as to present them as the offspring 
of a luxuriant poetic imagination, employed 
upon remote resemblances of a point of ex- 
ternal ceremony — as the mere intellectual 
play of a fancy fond of tracing faint analo- 
gies and of amusing itself with alliterations. 



248 

According to our estimate of the type of 
Paul's mind, and of the connection and im- 
port of these passages, they are the words of 
a man of God laboring to express some of 
the profoundest mysteries of the transform- 
ing power of the Saviour's grace. The 
baptism of which he speaks is neither the 
baptism of immersion or affusion, or of any 
other mode of performing an external ritCj 
but the inner and miraculous purification of 
man's whole moral nature by incorporation 
with Jesus Christ. The crucifixion, deathj 
burial and resurrection to which he alludes, 
so far from being mere images of immersion 
and emersion, are literal terms, denoting 
realities, and pointing, not to a figurative, 
but to an actual death of every believer to 
his sins and his real resurrection to newness 
of life. The cross here is not the cross of 
going under the water, but the inward cru- 
cifixion of the old man with the crucifixion 
of Christ. The parallel in the apostle's 
mind is not between the outward mode of 
external baptism and the death, burial and 
resurrection of the Saviour, but between 



249 

these particulars of his passion and the in« 
ward spiritual experiences of those who truly 
are his. His object is to show, not that 
Christians ought to walk in newness of life 
because figuratively raised from a watery 
grave in an outward ceremony, but that 
justification by faith, so far from ministering 
to licentiousness, carries with it and effects 
in the soul an extinction of man's licentious 
and sinful being, and sets up in its place a 
new and holy creature ; that it actually 
transfers to the believer's heart the whole 
history of the Saviour's passion, and contin- 
ues it there as a thing now transpiring in the 
hidden experiences of every true disciple. 
Dr. Fuller's interpretation takes in about as 
much of the real sublimity of these pas- 
sages as the stupid traveler at Rome took 
in of the grandeur of the Coliseum by ex- 
amining a detached piece of mortar from its 
walls. 

But if we were even to admit the Baptist 

interpretation, and agree that Paul is here 

tracing a comparison between the mode of 

baptism and the crucifixion, death, burial 

22 



250 

and resurrection of Christ, then the apostle 
comes before us in the absurd position of 
attempting to run an analogy between things 
in no way analogous. There is no mode of 
baptism of which we have ever heard which 
takes io, even in remotest resemblance, the 
various facts of this part of the Saviour's 
history. Take the most favorable particu- 
lars, the burial and resurrection. What 
resemblance is there between water, the 
softest and most yielding of visible substan- 
ces, and a solid rock, the very image of 
durability ? What likeness between dipping 
a man in a fluid and depositing a dead body 
in a horizontal excavation in the breast of a 
declivity ? What similarity between the 
wading of a living man into a stream or 
cistern and the bearing of a corpse to its 
final resting place ? What analogy between 
the hasty lifting up of a strangling subject 
from a plunge in the water and the triumph- 
ant resurrection of the re-animated Jesus in 
the strength of his own omnipotence ? What 
similitude between the glorified body of the 
rising Saviour and the drowned and dripping 



[251 

aspect of the Baptist subject coming up from 
his immersion ? Could any thing be more 
unlike than Christ, leaving his grave-clothes 
in his sepulchre of rock and coming forth 
unaided in his incorruptible body, and a man 
lifted hastily from the water, the same cloth- 
ing sticking sadly to him and he looking a 
great deal worse than before his immersion? 
Is it not amazing that any human mind could 
have imagined that such a *' sorry sight '' 
bore any resemblance to the majestic and 
glorious resurrection of our blessed Lord 1 
See Dr. Webster's Water Bapism Explain- 
ed^pp. 19, 32. No wonder that Dr. Fuller 
himself is so embarrassed with these dis- 
crepancies as to admit for once that ^' The 
MANNER IS NOTHING !" p. 74. Had he made 
this admission from the start, and kept him- 
self to it, he would have relieved his book of 
much false criticism and unsound reasoning, 
and spared himself the pain of pronouncing 
sentence of excommunication upon millions 
of God's own accepted sons and daughters. 
But again, what the apostle in verse 8 and 
4 calls baptism into Christ, into his death, 



252 

and burial (not in baptism hut) into death by 
baptism, in verse 5 he calls planting in the 
likeness of Chrisfs death. But what resem- 
blance is there between immersion and 
Christ's death, or between immersion and 
planting in the likeness of Christ's death? 
Was he put to death by drowning ? He was 
not thrust down in the water, but lifted up 
upon the cross. He did not die by being 
gently sunk into a yielding fluid, but by be- 
ing violently nailed upon an unyielding 
stake. Neither is immersion in water a 
representation of the idQB, o^ planting. What 
similitude is there between the dripping, 
soiled, uncomfortable looking man, lifted by 
another from the troubled water, and the 
beautiful young plant, painted by the rays 
and freshened by the showers of heaven, 
rising imperceptibly and noiselessly by the 
power of an inward life and vigor ? If 
burial into Christ's death by baptism then is 
the same as planting in the likeness, of 
Christ's death; — as the setting of the scion of 
the new spiritual man by the crucifixion of 
the old, — is it not as clear as language can 



253 

make it, that the idea of immersion is en- 
tirely excluded ? 

Once more, the burial spoken of in these 
passages is not a burial in baptism, but a 
burial in Chrisfs death. Will language 
tolerate the idea of immersion in the death 
of another? Was Christ's crucifixion a 
fluid ? There is purification in Christ's 
death ; and by that purification the old man 
with his vestment of vices is buried loith 
Christ, never to be raised again. But im- 
mersion in Christ's death, and that in the 
manner or ^' likeness^' of that death, i. e., in 
a way resembling crucifixion, is an associa- 
tion of incoherencies that may be compre- 
hensible to a Carolina lawyer, but surely 
not to common sense. 

Let us not be carried away then, as too 
many have been, by the mere sound of a 
word. The burial of which the apostle 
speaks is not a mere figurative, but a literal 
and real burial, an actual extinction of the 
carnal mind and an actual abstraction and 
concealment of it in the deep abyss of eter- 
nal sepulture. There, is not one of all these 
22* 



254 

allusions that sustains the Baptist theory-— 
no just laws of exegesis will permit them to 
be thus tied down to the signification of mere 
mode. They prove that Baptism is a sanctU 
ficatlon, but they do not prove that it is m- 
mersioiif or that immersion has any thing to 
do with it. 



255 



CHAPTER XV. 

Practice of the Greek Church — Practice of 
the Patristic Church — Jl case for Baptists 
to solve. 

It is sometimes thought that the practice 
of the so-called Greek church ought to be 
regarded as proof that baptism is immersion. 
Dr. Fuller seems to hold such an opinion. 
But this is a mere effigy. Modern Greek 
is about as much like classic Greek as Ital- 
ian is like classic Latin, Moreover, Dey- 
lingius, Peters, Kurtz and others are wit- 
nesses, that the Greek Church practices 
affusion after immersion, and regards it as 
an essential part of the ordinance. They 
also blow upon the candidate, and pour oil 
upon him, and mark him with the sign of 
the cross ! If then the modern Greeks are to 
decide the meaning of the word haptizo by 
their mode of baptizing, we dare by no means 
limit it to immersion, but must assign it a 
latitude which will take in pouring, Mowing 



256 

and marking with the cross ! Nor is it to be 
forgotten that the Greek Church insists upon 
the duty of baptizing infants; and if its 
practice is authoritative, that practice fixes 
the proper subjects as well as the proper 
mode of baptism. We protest against that 
sort of logic by which Baptists would hold 
us bound by the practice of the Greek 
church in one point, while they themselves 
denounce and ^condemn that practice in 
other points. And when we baptize by 
affusion, omitting immersion and other un- 
necessary and objectionable things, we are 
not half so heretical under Dr. Fuller's 
argument as he himself for refusing to bap- 
tize infants ; for whilst it would leave us 
with an imperfect baptism, it leaves him 
still further derelict with regard to a solemn 
command of God. 

But as Dr. Fuller has referred to the 
Greek Church, we will refer to another 
Christian society, equally if not more re- 
mote in antiquity, and so far removed from 
the common world as to have felt little of 
the conflicts of opinion or of the operations 



257 

of ambition, which have made such sad 
havoc with larger communities and inter- 
ests ; to a community of whom it is not too 
much to say, that they have retained the 
practices derived from their forefathers much 
more punctiliously than the perturbed nations 
of Christendom at large. We refer to the 
Syrian Christians in India. Cosmas Indico- 
pleustes found them there in A. D. 540 ; a 
certain Theophilus in 356, and mention is 
made of one of their bishops as early as 180. 
Good authority says that they were first 
converted by the personal labors of some of 
the apostles, in the very region which they 
still inhabit. Mr. Newell, an American 
missionary, visited them in 1814. He says, 
" I made particular inquiry respecting the 
mode of baptism. I found it was affusion. 
Respecting the suhjects of baptism I made no 
inquiry, as I supposed it was a matter of 
notoriety that the Syrians are Pedo-haptists. 
Br. Hall, who conversed with those same 
priests when he was at Cochin, understood 
that children were baptized.'' If this does 
not effectually set aside Dr. Fuller's argu- 



258 

ment from the practice of the Greeks, there 
is no force in facts. 

We come now to notice our author's last 
argument. It is drawn from what he calls 
the history of baptism. The substance of it 
is to this effect, that from the time of 
John and Christ to the third century bap- 
tism was invariably administered by the 
total immersion of the candidate, and that 
the present mode of administering this ordi- 
nance is a superstitious contrivance of a 
degenerate and corrupt theology. Shades 
of our fathers ! is this history ? History is 
fact; but these assertions are not fact. By 
taking the exact reverse of them we will 
be much nearer to the truth. We deny that 
immersion was the common mode of baptism 
in the apostolic period of the Church. The 
most patient and laborious and impartial 
examination of every legitimate source of 
argument has left us without one particle of 
proof that the apostolic baptisms were im- 
mersions. We deny that John's baptisms 
were immersions. We deny that the 3,000 
at Pentecost were immersed. We deny that 



259 

Paul, Cornelius, Lydia, the Jailor, or the 
Eunuch were baptized by inamersion. We 
deny that there is a particle of evidence that 
the apostles ordinarily, if ever, baptized by 
total inrinaersion. For though the inspired 
writers speak of baptism directly or indi- 
rectly on almost every page of the New 
Testament, and under a great variety of as- 
pects, they have not employed a single term, 
or stated a single fact, or used a single 
figure of speech, which evinces that they 
either preferred or practiced submersion in 
any case ; but on the other hand, they have 
used language and related occurrences 
vi^hich can by no possibility be reconciled 
with immersion. Indeed Coleman most posi- 
tively asserts that "the rite of immersion is 
an unauthorized assumption, in direct con- 
Jlict with the teachings, the spirit^ and the ex- 
ample of Christ and his apostles. '^ — Ancient 
Christianity, p. 367 . 

Dr. Fuller's '^ History " then stands con- 
tradicted in its most vital part. Its very life 
blood is wanting. For if the inspired apos- 
tles baptized in any manner without totally 



260 

immersing the candidate, no subsequent 
practice, however general or tenaciously 
contended for, can foist immersion upon us 
as an injunction of God or as a thing of 
binding obligatipn. 

Dr. Fuller quotes about thirty authorities 
to prove that immersion was generally prac- 
ticed at an early period in the history of the 
Church. Some of these references are very 
much in the same predicament with his quo- 
tation from the fifth book of Calvin's Insti- 
tutes, as contained in the first and second 
editions of his work. But we are free to 
admit, and so far as we know, none of the 
writers on our side of this controversy have 
ever refused to admit, that baptizing by 
immersion was generally prevalent during 
the last of the second, the third and the 
fourth centuries. Dr. Fuller's authorities 
go no farther than this admission. Not one 
of them says that immersion was specifically 
appointed by the Lord, or that the Christians 
of the periods referred to ever regarded im- 
mersion as the only mode of baptism author- 
ized by Christ and his apostles. /InrZ four- 



261 

TEEN of these very authors^ and in the very 
passages quoted, tell us expressly that there 

WERE ALWAYS EXCEPTIONS TO THE GENERAL 

PRACTICE, and that there never was a time 
when persons were not otherwise baptized than 
by immersion. Not one of them speaks of 
immersion as essential to the validity of 
baptism, or says that those of the third and 
fourth centuries, who ordinarily practiced 
immersion, ever regarded it as indispensable 
to the integrity of this sacrament. And Dr, 
Pond (pp. 42-50) has proven beyond the 
power of successful contradiction, that im- 
mersion was never considered as essential to 
baptism until the rise of the ^^ Baptist fathers^ ^ 
— the Anabaptists of Germany — in the pe- 
riod immediately following the Reformation. 
Coleman, who has made so many conces- 
sions to Baptists, has justly said, that the 
administration of baptism by immersion toas 
the first departure from the teaching and ex- 
ample of the apostles on this subject; that it 
is not in harmony with the Christian dispen- 
sation to give such importance to merely an 
outward rite, and that it is altogether a Jew- 
23 



262 

ish rather than a Christian idea, and indi- 
cates an origin and a spirit foreign to that of 
the ordinances of Christ and the apostles. 
(Ancient Christianity Exemplified^ p, 367.) 
Neither is it difficult to account for this early 
departure from apostolic practice. Chris- 
tianity began in the warm regions of the 
East, and in the midst of a people whose 
climate, habits, costume and mode of lite 
were all adapted to bathing ; and nothing 
could have been more natural than the use 
- of the bath as a mode of religious purifying 
on occasions otherwise convenient. This 
certainly was sufficient to begin the practice 
of immersion in baptism. This practice once 
introduced soon acquired strength from one of 
the primitive heathen significations of the 
word haptizo,S'^d from false interpretations of 
Rom. 6 ; 3, 4, and Col. 2 : 12. In addition 
to this, as Dr, Fuller himself remarks, " even 
in the days of the apostles we find corrup- 
tions insinuating themselves ; and very soon 
after the time of the apostles all manner of 
innovations and abuses began to creep in ;'^ p. 
91. Pre-eminent among these abuses was 



263 

that superstition from which Papacy took its 
origin, the undue reverence for external forms' 
And amid those deep-rooted tendencies to 
formalism and superstition, what was there 
to avert from the Church a surrender of 
herself to what fanaticism and superstition 
would regard as the largest and most effec- 
tual mode of administering an ordinance in 
which so much was supposed to be involved, 
both of emblematical import and of sancti- 
fying power ? See Beecher on Baptism, 
sec. 23. 

But amid the general departure from 
apostolic example which characterized the 
Church in the third, fourth and fifth centu- 
ries, the validity of baptism performed by 
affusion alone was never denied. Clodovius, 
king of the Franks, was baptif^ d by affusion 
in 499. Argilulfus, the king, and Theolin- 
da, the queen of the Longobards. were bap- 
tized by affusion in 591. Gennadius of 
Marseilles in 490 said that the baptized per- 
son is either sprinkled or immersed. Con- 
stantine the Great was baptized by affusion 
in 337. Cyprian, who suffered martyrdom 



264 

in 258, has left us a formal discussion upon 
the propriety of baptizing by affusion, in 
which he argues that baptisnas thus per- 
formed are valid, perfect, and acceptable to 
God. See his 69th Epistle. His cotempo- 
rary, St. Lawrence, baptized Romanus, a 
soldier, with a pitcher of water, and one Lu- 
cillus by pouring water on his head. At a 
period still earlier Novatian, a converted 
heathen philosopher, was baptized by affu- 
sion. The writer quoted by E use bins, from 
whom we have the account of the transac- 
tion, does not hesitate to call it a haptism. 
TertuUian, born 150, speaks of the '^ asper- 
sion of wafer " in connection with penitence 
and baptism, so as to leave us to infer that 
baptizing by affusion was common in his 
day, and not^therwise esteemed than as a 
valid mode of administering this ordinance ; 
De Penitent, cap, 6. In the catacomb of 
Pontianus, out of the gate Portese at Rome, 
an ancient baptistery, which antiquarians 
upon clear and decisive grounds have dated 
back to the year 107, teaches the same doc- 
trine. It is older than any copy of the Gos- 



265 

pels now in existence, but it speaks nothing 
of immersion. On the left is a nitch, in the 
rocky side where the administrator stood, 
fronting a basin formed by a slight excava- 
tion in the floor. On the farthest wall is a 
representation of the baptism of Christ, in 
which the water is being 'poured on his head. 
Such a picture, in such a place, could have 
been for no other purpose than to instruct 
the baptizers and their subjects that thus was 
the blessed Saviour baptized and that thus 
baptism was legitimately performed. So 
that the primitive practice of administering 
baptism by affusion has been engraven upon 
the very rock itself. And Venema, Salma- 
sius, Eusebius, Baronius, Bingham, Nean- 
der, Winer, Gieseler, Coleman, and all the 
best authorities, tell us that in the case of 
sickness, or when water was' not easily pro- 
cured, or when the baptismal font was too 
small, or when other considerations of con. 
venience or climate rendered immersion 
difficult or improper, the patristic church 
always held affusion to be a valid mode of 
baptism, and regarded it 3.s prof unity and sin 
23* 



266 

to re-baptize any who had received this or- 
dinance in that manner. Cyprian says, '* If 
any think that they have obtained nothing, 
but are still empty and void, in that they have 
only been ajfused with sanctifying water, they 
must not be deceived, and so, if they escape 
the ills of their sickness and recover, be re- 
baptized ; " as that would be to '' question 
the verity of faith, and to deny baptism its 
proper majesty and sanctity." It is true that 
it was held to be improper for such as first 
applied for baptism in the extremity of sick- 
ness afterwards to be promoted to high offi- 
cial positions; but not because the ordinary 
mode of baptizing clinics >vas esteemed in 
any way imperfect, as the Baptists insinu- 
ate. We have the express testimony of 
Cyprian and others that "the sprinkling of 
water has like force with washing and holds 
good,'^ and that it neither abridges the ordi- 
nance itself nor curtails the spiritual bene- 
iits with which it is associated. The only 
reason why those baptized in sickness were 
<iebarred fiom official honors is that assigned 
■by Rufinus, Bingham, and others, that the 



267 

postponement of baptism lo such an hour ar- 
gued a great want of spiritual sensibility 
and showed an absence of that voluntary, 
cheerful and unconstrained surrender to 
Christ which ought to characterize high offi- 
cers in the Church. 

It is also worthy of remark that there 
arose a sect in the fourth century called the 
Eunomians, which embraced men as distin- 
guished for learning and penetration as any 
who lived in that period, who denounced the 
custom of immersing candidates for baptism 
as an unwarrantable departure Irom the 
primitive mode of administering this ordi- 
nance, and insisted that baptism was only 
rightly performed by wetting the head and 
shoulders. 

Nor is it to be forgotten that when the 
early Christians immersed their subjects they 
immersed them in -perfect nakedness. Wheth- 
er male or female, old or young, immersion 
was never performed unless the candidate 
had first been divested of every particle of 
clothing. And this requirement had a foun» 
dation as respectable and an antiquity as 



268 

great as the custom of immersion itself. If 
immersion in water could set forth the death 
and burial and resurrection of Christ, the 
unclothing of the person baptized did much 
better set forth the putting off of the body 
of sin in order to put on the new man, which 
is created in righteousness and true holiness. 
And immersion has no ancient records which 
are not at the same time records of the cus- 
tom of bringing people to baptism as naked 
as they came into the world. So that if the 
example of the patristic church is binding 
in regard to immersion, we argue that it is 
equally binding with regard to this matter 
of divesture, and that if Baptists are at liber- 
ty to reject the one, we are at equal liberty 
to reject the other also. We deny the right 
in any man to hold us to the oriental prac- 
tice in one particular, whilst he himself dis- 
cards it in another. 

Nay, more, if we were even to admit that 
the word hapfizo ordinarily signifies immer- 
sion, and that the first Christians ordinarily 
baptized by immersion, we would still not be 
bound to this specific mode of baptizing. 



269 

We put a case, mostly in the words of one 
who was himself once a Baptist minister, 
and commend it to the careful attention of 
all modern sticklers for specific outward 
forms. It is well known that under the 
present dispensation there are two instituted 
ordinances ; the one in Scripture is expressed 
by the term deipnon, sl supper, the other by 
hapHsma, baptism. The proper and obvious 
meaning of deipnon is a feast or common 
meal; Mark 6 : 21, Jno. 21 : 22. Accord- 
ing to the Baptist theory the meaning of 
haptisma is the total immersion of the whole 
body. The case then is this: If, because 
the meaning of the term haptisma, baptism, 
is the immersion of the whole body, and no 
one can be said to be baptized who has not 
been immersed, we ask, how can he who 
takes a bit of bread an inch square and 
drinks a spoonful of wine, which is neither 
a feast nor a common meal, and therefore 
not a literal fulfilment of the word deipnon^ 
be said to have received the Lord's Supper? 
If the ordinary meaning of the words enjoin- 
ing the one sacrament can be thus abridged 
and the validity of the sacrament remain 



270 

unimpaired, why may-not the ordinary mean- 
ing of the words in the other sacrament be 
similarly abridged without detriment to the 
essential character of the ordinance ? If a 
bit of bread and a sip of wine will answer 
for a full meal, why will not a handful of 
water answer for a total immersion ? We 
demand an answer to this question. The 
cases are' precisely analogous. Both are 
positive commands and institutions of Christ 
himself. And, conceding all that the Bap- 
tist claims for haptisma, our refusal to be 
totally immersed is no more an infraction of 
the Saviour's command, than the universal 
way of receiving the Supper. So that if we 
were even to admit Dr. Fuller's leading posi- 
tions, which however we do not admit for one 
moment, his own practice with regard to the 
Lord's Supper effectually relieves us from 
the conclusions which he so diligently seeks 
to fix upon us, and utterly confounds and 
annihilates the logic by which he would fain 
convict some of God's own blessed sons and 
daughters with derelictions unfitting them for 
Christian communion even here in this im- 
perfect world. 



271 



CHAPTER XVI. 

Results of our Examination thus far — Author^ 
ities — Effects and Tendencies of the Baptist 
Theory, 

We have now examined every point in 
Dr. Fuller's "philological inquiry as to the 
meaning of boptizo.'' Not a single link in 
the chain of his ^^argumenf' have we omitted. 
The reader is therefore in a position to judge 
where the truth lies. 

We have shown that our author's doctrine 
that haptizo is bapto, made stronger and more 
intense by the addition of zo, is a mere con- 
ceit, without foundation in fact, contradicted 
by the very examples given to sustain it, 
and even if true, completely subverting the 
statement that baptizo means immersion and 
nothing else. Indeed, what we overlooked 
at the time, Mr. Carson asserts in the most 
positive manner that " the derivative cannot 
go beyond its primitive ;^^ and this he says in 
designed contradiction of the story about Dr. 



272 

Person's opinion, which he quotes only to 
question. See Carson on Baptism, p, 23. 

We have also shown that the doctrine that 
one word cannot have more than one mean- 
ing is, in its general application, a falsehood 
which the most ordinary capacity may read- 
ily detect, and which, in the specific case of 
haptizo, stands contradicted by all the lexi- 
cographers, and by the passages quoted to 
show the meaning of this word, as well on 
Dr. Fuller's side as on ours. 

And as to his grand leading point, that 
^'Baptizo signifies a total immersion and has 
no other meaning," we feel confident that 
every candid reader, sincerely inquiring for 
the truth, has been amply satisfied that it is 
as em.pty as the chaff from the threshing 
floor. Mr. Carson admits that ^^all the lexi- 
cographers and commentators^^ are against it ; 
p. 55. We have shown that, although the 
ancient heathen Greeks often employed bap- 
tizo in the sense of dip, sink, plunge, drown, 
overwhelm and destroy, it also, from time 
out of mind; has had attached to it the gen- 
eral sense of wash, cleanse and purify. We 



2^3 * 

have shown that, with one doubtful excep- 
tion, it is uniformly used in the Septuagint 
to signify purification or washing, without 
reference to mode. We have shown that 
the New Testament, which is the only infal- 
lible authority on this point, does not use 
baptize in one single instance where it 
clearly and evidently takes the sense of total 
immersion ; that it exchanges it v/ith katliar^ 
izo, to purify, and explains it by dikaioo, to 
clear ; that the sacred writers employ it with 
reference to men who only washed their 
hands, and to Mosaic purifications, which 
were performed in some instances by sprink- 
ling alone, and in others by simple washing 
in any manner ; that there are inspired ac- 
counts of baptisms where the circumstances 
and facts render it impossible to believe that 
they were immersions, and that there are 
things omitted and things inserted in the 
Christian Scriptures which leave no room 
for the idea that baptism is necessarily and 
always a total immersion, or that the Holy 
Ghost ever once used the word in such a 
sense. We have shown that the early 
24 



274 

Christian writers, many of whom were native 
Greeks, have used it where the idea of im- 
mersion is absolutely excluded, and have 
almost universally employed it in the sense 
of purification. We have shown that all 
Dr. Fuller's parade respecting the practice 
of the patristic and modern Greek Churches, 
the "many waters" of Enon, the going down 
into the water, the coming up out of the 
water, katabe, et cetera, so far as respects 
this question, is as futile as emptiness could 
make it. In short, we have followed him 
over the entire field of his disquisition, and 
found him contradicting the plainest facts, 
interpolating historical statements, giving for 
Scripture what is not in Scripture, perverting 
authorities, wresting inspired language from 
its obvious import, charging the best and 
wisest men that have ever lived with a spu- 
rious Christianity, excluding them from the 
visible church, the Lord's Supper and the 
sure hope of heaven, binding down the free 
and glorious blessings of Christ's mediation 
to a mere accident of external ceremony, 
sending us back to the old heathen writers 



275 

to ascertain whether we are Christians, at 
every step using logic that is unsound apd 
assertions that are not true, making a heter- 
ogeneous set of modern sectarians the only 
true Church of God on earth, denouncing the 
most solemn sacraments of the great house- 
hold of God for more than a thousand years 
as superstition or profanity at once invalid 
and unchristian ; and all this as indispensa- 
ble to the maintenance of his dogma, that 
^^Bapiizo signifies immersion and has no 
other meaning." And we now ask, what 
more any candid man can require to justify 
the most decisive verdict from a discerning 
Christian public against our author and his 
cause ? or to show that haptizo in the New 
Testament is not that narrow and merely 
modal word upon which his whole system 
rests? Look at the following authorities. 

Dr. Dwight, one of the most distinguished 
theologians and scholars this country has 
ever produced, says, ''I have examined al- 
most one hundred instances in which the 
word haptizo and its derivatives are used in 
the New Testament, and four in the Septua- 



276 

gint; these, so far as I have observed, being 
all the instances contained in both. By this 
examination it is to nay apprehension evident 
that the following things are true: — That 
the primary meaning^ of these terms is deans- 
ing^ the effect, not the mode of washing; and 
that these words, although often capable of 
denoting any mode of washing, whether by 
affusion, sprinkling or immersion, (since 
cleansing was familiarly accomplished by 
the Jews in all these ways,) yet in many 
instances cannot, without obvious improprie- 
ty, be made to signify immersion, and in 
others cannot signify it at all ;" TheoL, vol. 
4, p, 345. 

Dr. Henderson says, " With respect to the 
Greek word haptizOy after having read al- 
most every work that professes to throw any 
light upon it, and carefully examined all the 
passages in which both it and its derivatives 
occur in the sacred volume, and a very con- 
siderable number of those in which it is found 
in classic authors, we are free to confess we . 
have not yet fallen in with a single instance 
in which it can be satisfactorily proved that 



277 

it signifies a submersion of the whole body, 
without at the same time conveying the idea 
that the submersion was permanent, i, e., 
that the body thus submerged sunk to rise 
no more. So far as has yet been ascer- 
tained, the word is never used by any ancient 
author in 'the sense of one person performing 
an act of submersion upon another." How 
evident therefore that this word has a pecu- 
liar and specific sense when employed by 
the Holy Ghost, and that when so employed, 
mere immersion cannot be its meaning. 

Dr. Watson says, *'The verb hapto, with 
its derivatives, signifies to dip the hand into 
a dish, to stain a vesture with blood, to wet 
the body with dew, to paint or smear the 
face with colors, to stain the hand by press- 
ing a substance, to be overwhelmed in the 
waters as a sunken ship, to be drowned by 
falling into the water, to sink in the neuter 
sense, to immerse totally, to plunge up to the 
neck, to be immersed up to the middle, to be 
drunk with wine, to be dyed, tinged or im- 
bued, to wash by affusion of water, to pour 

water upon the hands or any part of the 
24* 



278 

body, to sprinkle, A word then of such ap- 
plication affords as good a proof of sprinkling, 
or partial dipping, or washing with water, as 
for immersion in it. The controversy on this 
accommodating word has been carried on to 
weariness; and if ever the advocates of im- 
mersion could prove, what they have not 
been able to do, that plunging is the primary 
meaning of the term, they would gain noth- 
ing, since in Scripture it is notoriously used 
to express other applications of water." 

Dr. Miller, of Princeton, says, " This word 
(haptizo) does not necessarily, nor even 
commonly, signify to immerse; but also im- 
plies to wash, to sprinkle, to pour on water 
and to tinge or die with any liquid ; and 
therefore accords very well with the mode 
of baptism by sprinkling or affusion. ... It 
does legitimately signify the application of 
water in any way, as well as by immersion. 
Nay, I can assure you, if the most mature 
and competent Greek scholars that ever lived 
may be allowed to decide in this case, that 
many examples of the use of this word occur 
in Scripture in which it not only 7nay, but 



279 

manifestly must signify sprinkling, perfusion 
or washing in any way." 

Edwards says, " Baptizo has indeed been 
used for all the modes of washing — sprink- 
ling, pouring and immersing ; whereas it 
does not express the one nor the other, but 
washing only ; and this may be done in either 
of the modes ; and therefore, when we read 
of any person or thing being baptized, we 
cannot conclude from the word itself whether 
it was done by affusion, aspersion or immer- 
sion-" 

Dr. Beecher says, " The word haptizo, as 
a religious term, means neither dip nor 
sprinkle, immerse nor pour, nor any other 
external action in applying a fluid to the 
body or the body to a fluid, nor any action 
that is limited to one mode of performance ; 
but as a religious term it means, at all times, 
to purify or cleanse, — words of a meaning 
so general, as not to be confined to any n^ode, 
or agent, or means, or object, whether ma- 
terial or spiritual, but to leave the widest 
scope for the question as to the mode. So 
that in this usage it is in every respect a 



280 

perfect synonym of the word katharizo. 
This proposition I at first derived solely from 
an examination of the New Testament usage, 
and I here repeat it as a true view of the 
import of the language of that supreme law 
of the Christian Church. . And if so, all 
attempts to enforce on the Church obedience 
to a command to immerse is a manifest in- 
vasion of the great principles of religious 
liberty. It is teaching for doctrines the 
commandments of men." 

Dr. Fuller's theory then, that " Jesus 
commands his disciples to be immersed," is 
wholly untenable. He may honestly enter- 
tain it, and many of his followers may take it 
as the truth of God ; but it is nevertheless 
wholly unsupported by the origin or use of 
the word upon which he relies, contradicted 
by apostolic practice and by the admissions of 
the great body of the Church, from the time 
of Paul and John until now, at war with 
scriptural intimations as to mode in baptism, 
and with the general tone and spirit of the 
gospel, and of the free dispensation which 
the gospel introduced, having its chief source 



281 

and nourishment in what is as anti-christian 
as it is Pharisaic, superstitious and sectarian, 
and as mischievous in its tendencies as it is 
unsound in principle. Indeed it would hard- 
ly be necessary to look farther than the 
effects of this man-made gospel in order to 
see that its source is not divine. It excludes 
the repenting sick from the privilege of con- 
fessing Christ in his own appointed mark of 
discipleship and sacrament of forgiveness. 
It does the same in the cases of those mem- 
bers of our race whom the gospel shall reach 
in arid deserts, where there is scarcely water 
enough within reach to sustain life, or in 
those polar realms where unmitigated winter 
reigns for nearly all the year, locking up 
every stream in icy fetters, covering the 
surface of the deep with impregnable solidi- 
ty, and rendering the immersion of a man in 
water the instantaneous conversion of him 
into a statue of frozen flesh and blood. It 
destroys the solemnity and disturbs the de- 
votion which ought to attend the adminis- 
tration of the baptismal sacrament, often 
converting an ordinance of God into a sliow 



282 

for the amusement of men, giving point to 
the jests of the vulgar and bringing pain to 
the feelings of the devout. Dr. Fuller, with 
all his studied sanctity of manner, the ele- 
gancies of music, the assistance of waiting 
friends, the concealment of the rising sub- 
ject's face, the considerate interposition of 
his own person to cover the sorry and swag- 
gering retreat of his candidates from the 
pool, and all the shields and graces that his 
ingenuity can throw around it, cannot de- 
prive immersion of its liability to the charge 
which we here make upon it. It also sub- 
verts the order of the gospel, exalting the 
ritual above what is personal, placing the 
form above the substance, making spiritual 
qualifications nothing unless accompanied 
by submission to a mere puncto of external 
ceremony, and engrafting Levitical bondage 
upon evangelical freedom. It leads to the 
denunciation of the most solemn official acts 
of the greatest and most pious ministers that 
have ever lived as profanity and lies, not. 
to be respected for a moment. It obscures 
the vital doctrines of the Christian faith, by 



283 

displacing and supplanting them in the puU 
pit and in the common mind by mere ques- 
tions of outward formalities, which can profit 
nothing. It begets a superstitious regard for 
the rite of baptism itself, as though salvation 
were to be obtained in the water. It was so 
in the fourth and fifth centuries. It is so 
now in the case of the Campbellites and in 
the cases of very many individual Baptists, 
Dr. Fuller himself has not escaped this ten- 
dency of his system. " Saved or damned P^ 
are the first words in his book ; and if sal- 
vation and damnation are not associated in 
his mind with submission and refusal to go 
under the water, or if he does not in some 
way regard this momentous question as in* 
v6lved in immersion, it is contemptible hy- 
pocrisy, if not downright profanity, to intro- 
duce an argument on immersion with such 
words, amplified too as if this were the 
question to be decided. Meet a zealous 
Baptist where you will, and immersion is 
obtruded upon you as a theme paramount to 
all others. Nearly every Baptist preacher 
who has learned to decline Ho, and many a 



§S4 

Baptist preacher who knows not what tto is, 
must needs write a book, tract or something 
else on irmnersion, just as though that em- 
bodied the essence of Christianity, or as if it 
were the ultimatum of ministerial effort to 
hold up above every thing else this one 
matter of sim.ple form. iStoutly as it may 
be denied, 

Ho I every mother's son and daughter. 
Here's salvation in the water^ 

are lines which express what may be seen 
in the spirit of Baptist literature,* preaching 

* Out of thirteen of the Publicatiotasof the " Southern Bap- 
tist Publication Society," including Hymn-Books and Rhymes, 
and conversations for children, four are on the subject of 
Baptism. Tlie Editor of the Baptist paper of Baltimore con- 
cedes that, out of 170 volumes, including Sabbath school 
books, and biographies, published by the " American Baptist 
Publication Society." 19 are strictly on " the Baptismal ques- 
tion," and that, out of 207 Tracts, 20 are exclusively " denom- 
inational!" 

Professor Eaton, in a speech before the Baptist American 
and Foreign Bible Society, April 28th, 1840, says, " Never, 
sir, was there a cord struck that vibrated simultaneously 
through so many Baptist hearts from one extremitv of the 
land to the other, as when it was announced that the heathen 
world must look to them alone for an unveiled view of the glo- 
ries of the Gospel of Christ." "A deep conviction seized 
the minds of almost the whole body, that they were divinely 
AND PECULIARLY SET for the defence and dissemination of the 
Go'i'pel, as delivered to man by its heavenly author." And 
yet we are to be called " forgers of wliolesale falsehood," 
When we say that salvation by water is the spirit of Baptist 
literature I Also that men should be so blinded by fanatical 
sectaria'iism, as not to know " what manner of spirit they are 
of," and so infatuated in their mistaken zeal, as angrily to 
brand even the trutli as a lie ! 



285 

and conversation— the fruit of a deep seated 
tendency in their system to divert the mind 
from the vital elements of saving religion to 
a superstitious and fanatical regard for an 
insignificant mode of performing an outward 
ceremony. 

Nor is this all. The Baptist dogma leads 
to the excommunication and to the ecclesi- 
astical punishment of holy Christian men 
and women, by thousands and millions^ 
whose names are written in heaven and 
whom God has adopted as his own sons and 
daughters. It leads to the intolerant pro- 
scription of all, however devout of heart and 
meek in spirit, who do not embrace it. It is 
the foster-mother of a system of proselytism 
which puts it not beneath the dignity of Dr. 
Fuller himself to break through all his pro- 
fessions of fraternity, insidiously to creep 
into the flocks of men whom he calls ^^ hreth^ 
ren^'^^ to steal away their sheep, and which 
would make him think he had done God 
service if he could drain every church and 
destroy every congregation in Christendom 
which refuses to bow to his sectarian dicta- 
25 



§86 

lion. It has led to the public and formal 
denunciation of the great Bible Societies of 
Britain and America-— those two wings of 
the apocalyptic angel with the everlasting 
gospel to preach to every kindred, peoplej 
tribe and tongue---as ^^ comUnations to obscure 
the Divine Revelation /" It has engendered 
in its devotees a bigotry, intolerance and 
self sufficiency, which Robert Hall, though 
a Baptist, saw, lamented and sought to coun. 
leract, as being the same in essence and 
equally reprehensible with the most arro° 
gant and anti-christian assumptions of the 
Papacy itself. It has led, according to th6 
testimony of that eloquent man of God, to 
^* glaring instances of gross violation as well 
of the dictates of inspiration as of the max- 
ims of Christian antiquity; both of which,'' 
says he, '^concur in inculcating the doctrine 
of the absolute unity of the Church, and of 
the horrible incongruity y I might almost say 
impiety, of attem.pting to establish a system 
which represents a great majority of its 
members as personally disqualified for com- 
munion." It falsifies the words of Jesusj 



287 

that the gates of hell should not prevail 
against his kingdom, by representing the 
world as without the presence of God's 
Church for more than seven hundred years. 
Nay, such is its arbitrary and anti-christian 
bearing as to make it extremely doubtful 
whether there is now any where under the 
whole heaven any such a thing as a true, 
legitimate. Christian Church. 

Can such a theory, with such tendencies^ 
plead scriptural warrant? Can the immac- 
ulate Son of God be the author of such a 
system? Can heaven be the origin of such 
doctrine ? Can Jehovah be the parent of such 
confusion ? To say so would be to slander 
the great God, to obscure the attributes of his 
love and mercy, to throw discredit upon his 
word, to cast contempt upon his Gospel and 
to divide his kingdom against itself. We 
cannot believe it. It is too much for the 
most fanatical credulity. It is an outrage 
upon common sense. It is Papal arrogance 
in the guise of Protestant humility. We 
pity the people who have suffered themselves 
to be imposed on and infatuated by it. We 



288 

honor and sympathize with them as Chris- 
tians, so far as they show a Christian temper 
and walk. Many of them are doubtless good 
men and true, and accepted of God ; but 
they are giving their sanction to a system 
the bearings of which are as contrary to the 
spirit of the gospel and as antagonistic to 
some of its clearest dictates as error is to 
truth or sin to holiness; a system which 
leads them to call me a minister of Jesus, 
whilst they pronounce my administrations 
invalid and seek to persuade away my peo- 
ple, as if I were a devouring wolf; which 
leads them to call me a Christian brother, 
whilst they excommunicate me from my 
Saviour's Church ; which leads them to hon- 
or me as a Christian friend with one breath, 
and with the next to deny to me the hope of 
salvation, except as they extend it to the un- 
baptized heathen; and which leads them at 
times to flatter me as a disciple of Jesus, and 
yet to turn me away from the Lord^s table 
like a dog. 

And this, we are to be told, is Christian- 
ity ; the pure, expanded, inspiring, love- 



289 

filled, meek and charitable religion of Jesus 
Christ ; the very perfection of that economy 
of love and liberty of which the holy seers 
of old did sing, and for which the heart of 
many generations yearned and longed and 
prayed ! «' Oh, tell it not in Gath, publish 
it not in the streets of Askelon, lest the Phil- 
istines rejoice and the daughters of the un- 
circumcised triumph !" 

This then is Richard-Fullerism, so far as 
respects the conclusions of his ^'calm philo- 
logical inquiry as to the meaning of a Greek 
word." And we ask the reader, as he shall 
answer at the dreadful day of judgment, 
whether he can look upon it as the truth of 
God? 



25* 



290 



CHAPTER XYII. 



The Baptism of Infants — How spoken of hy 

Baptists — J\*ot a sin^ as alleged The 

Commission — " Disciples '' — Chihiren of 
heliever'^s '•'disciples — The Saviour's teach- 
ing on the subject. 

We now come to notice that part of Dr. 
Fuller's ^'argument" which treats of Infant 
Baptism. This is an important department 
of this controversy; but we have already 
occupied so much space that we shall be 
compelled to abbreviate what we had mark- 
ed out to say upon it. 

One of the most noticeable things in what 
our opponents have recorded concerning in- 
fant baptism, is the wholesale and unqualified 
manner in which they have condemned and 
denounced it. Indeed, they do not hesitate 
to say, that it is one of the most dreadful and 
reprehensible abominations that have ever 
afflicted the human race. Mr. Kinghorn 
regards it as " the very precursor of Anti- 



291 

Christy the inlet of almost every abomination.^^ 
Mr. Howell declaims against it as ''an evil 
which despoils the Church and subverts the 
doctrine of infant salvation — v^hich is the 
grand foundation of the union of Church and 
State, the source of religious persecutions, 
a hindrance to the conversion of the world, 
a sin against God, one of the most calam- 
itous evils iviih which the Church has ever heen 
visited, the most melancholy of all evils, and 
more disastrous to the cause of truth and sal- 
vation than any of the progeny of superstition.''^ 
And Mr. Ide execrates it as ** that old upas 
tree, which j with its death 'distilling branches^ 
popery, prelacy and skepticism, has for 
fourteen centuries shaded and blasted the 
world f^' Dr. Fuller chimes in with the 
same strain of sweeping denunciation, call- 
ing it ^^ a?j anti-christian practice^ introducing 
and perpetuating the most glaring inconsist- 
ency and mischievous confusion, tarnishing 
the glory of the atonement and doing vast 
injury to our children.'^ And if Baptists 
are God's oracles, there never has been a 
curse so dreadful, or a blight so terrific as 



292 

that inflicted by the dedication of little inno- 
cents to their Maker in an ordinance which 
he himself has appointed as a sign of his 
love and saving grace ! Infanticide itself is 
hardly a sin so enormous ! 

But how can this be true ? *^ Sin is the 
transgression of the law;'' but what law is 
transgressed by the baptizing of infants ? 
The law of parental duty? No; this is a 
thing which it specially inculcates, enforces 
and seeks to fulfil. The law of personal re- 
sponsibility ? No ; for it acknowledges this 
in all its rightful amplitude, and marks each 
child as God's from its infancy, and bound 
over to be a faithful servant of the King of 
kings and Lord of lords. The law of social 
privilege ? No ; this also it fulfils by bring- 
ing the proper persons under the most solemn 
vows to see to the wants and training of the 
child baptized. Where then is the sin ? Id 
what consists the element of the crime ? 
What right is violated ? What principle of 
morality is outraged ? What precept of God 
is infracted? Let our accusers answer, for 
it is vain for them to think of escaping the 
burden of proof in a case like this. 



293 

If infant baptism were the dreadful here- 
sy, the devastating curse, the horrible beast, 
dripping from head to foot with the blood of 
souls, which Baptists declare it to be, the 
Scriptures must certainly take notice of it, or 
give some cautions against it. Otherwise 
Revelation would be an insufficient guide. 
But neither Fuller, Carson, Booth, Kinghorn, 
Ide, Campbell nor Robert Boyte C, Howell 
have brought forward one single inspired 
passage condemnatory of it. With all their 
enthusiasm and sectarian zeal, they have not 
even pretended that any such passage is to 
be found. Against popery, schism and skep- 
ticism, against evil in all its protean shapes, 
and against abuses of divine ordinances of 
all forms and grades, the Scriptures present 
the fullest and most overwhelming array. 
But here is a thing which, we are told, is 
the most mischievous of errors; the most 
melancholy of all the progeny of supersti- 
tion ; a death-distilling upas, blasting the 
earth for almost one third of its age ; the 
parent of popery, superstition and unbelief, 
spreading ruin and damnation over all the 



294 

face of Christendom, from the beginning 
until now ; and yet not a word to be found 
against it in the Bible, not an allusion to it 
in the prophecies, and not a precept in all 
God's Revelation to protect the devout pa- 
rent from it ! Can such a thing be possible ? 
Is not this very silence of the Holy Ghost 
proof enough that infant baptism is not, and 
cannot be that blasting curse and damning 
sin described in Baptist writings on this 
subject ? 

Nay, more, if it is an evil and a sin to 
baptize children, then the best and most 
useful men that ever lived were *' sinners 
above all," enemies of the Church, and of 
the race, and of God himself. In that case 
Luther and Melancthon, Knox, Howe, Leigh- 
ton, Baxter, Wesley, Doddridge, Brainerd, 
Payson, Chalmers and all the very flower of 
Christendom, are to be set down as the veriest 
sons of Belial. Where then has Christ's 
Church been for so many ages ? What be- 
comes of the faith and constancy of martyrs, 
who cheerfully laid down their lives out of 
love for Jesus ? What shall be said for the 



Wigdom and piety of those men, advocates of 
infant baptism, who stand forth on the his- 
toric page as the boast of their species, the 
lights of their times, the Joshuas, Elies, Ez* 
ras, Davids, Jeremiahs and Daniels of the 
new dispensation ? Must we at length re- 
verse the sentiments of love and grateful 
praise which generations have inscribed upon 
their tombs, and cast out their names as the 
guilty minions of Anti^Christ? God of our 
fathers! and has it come to this! Alas! 
who can set limits to sectarian fanaticism ! 

But let us come down to the naked point 
in dispute, [f sound scriptural reasons can 
be given for the baptism of infants, all the 
fierce denunciations which have been direct- 
ed against it and its advocates must pass for 
mere ebullitions of religious phren^y. 

Dr. Fuller has undertaken to prove that 
the baptizing of infants is contrary to the 
Scriptures. Faithful to his Tubbermore 
guide, he begins with the commission in 
Matthew, "Go ye therefore and teach (mar* 
gin, make disciples of) all nations, baptizing 
them in the name of the Father, •and of the 



296 

Son, and of the Holy Ghost, teaching them 
lo observe all things whatsoever I have 
commanded you." Mr. Carson says, that 
he '' would gainsay an angel from heaven, 
who should say that this commission may 
extend to the baptism of any but (aduii) be- 
lievers ;" and that '' if he even found another 
command, enjoining the baptism of the in- 
fants of believers, he should not move an 
inch from his position!" p. 170. And in 
the same stubborn and infatuated spirit Dr, 
Fuller clings to this commission as if there 
could be no Scripture beside it, insisting that 
it ordains the baptizing of believers, and that 
it is a waste of time— -a casting of pearls 
before swine— to attempt argument with a 
man who does not perceive that this for ever 
shuts out infants from the command! To 
use his ov^n classic words, ^^Was the like 
ever heard out of Bedlam ?" 

Now the answer to this way of reasoning 
is at once short and conclusive. The com- 
mission does not say, " Go and baptize be- 
lievers, much less, Go and baptize believers 
9iiJy, The only command is to baptize all 



297 

NATIONS. The words in Mark contain no 
command to baptize at all, but simply a 
promise to believers who have been bap- 
tized. To say that Mark calls the same 
persons believers whom Matthew calls discu 
pleSy and that these are parallel words, is a 
mere gratuitous assumption, without a parti- 
cle of proof any where to be found in either 
passage. And if an angel from heaven and 
all other Scripture is to be gainsayed on 
such grounds, it is useless for Dr. Fuller to 
assign to us all the *^ obliquity of mind," or 
to claim to himself a teachable discipleship 
above the infants of believers. 

But if we even take this command in the 
narrowest sense the words allow, it can be 
restricted no farther than to " disciples.^^ A 
disciple is simply a learner. This is the 
first definition Donegan gives of the original 
word, mathetsss. And the infants of pious 
parents are, from their very birth, learners of 
Christ. It is beyond the power of man to 
form an estimate as to the extent to which at 
devout and believing spirit in parents may 
be made to infuse itself into their children? 
26 



298 

or as to how far the discipleship of pious 
parents secures and includes discipleship in 
their infant offspring. It is certain that di- 
vine influences may be communicated and 
holy emotions awakened even before the 
child has learned the use of speech ; and 
that where parents will skillfully perform 
their part, their children will needs grow up 
disciples, with a mould of piety dating back 
in early infancy. They are in the strictest 
sense mathetai. By the necessity of their 
age, and by the privilege of having believing 
parents, they are learners, and learners in 
Christ. And to shut them out from the or- 
dinance to which learners in Christ are 
entitled is to reject those whom Christ him- 
self has included. 

The command, however, by no means 
requires that the subject must be a disciple 
prior to baptism. Its literal terms are, " Go 
and disciple allnationSy baptizing them,'' All 
NATIONS must certainly embrace all classes, 
male and female, adults and infants; and 
all these are to be discipled by baptizing 
them. So that if we are to bind ourselves 



299 

up to the sheer letter of the commission, the 
compulsory baptism of the ungodly, like that 
of the Saxons by order of Charlemagne, is 
a thing much more imperiously demanded 
than the denial of baptism to infants. Rea- 
son and Scripture analogy are the only things 
to warrant any limitation. And reason and 
analogy alike require that the word disciple 
should be understood in its largest sense, and 
that all should be baptized of whom there is 
reason to believe that they are being made 
learners in the school of Jesus. 

We will not now suffer ourselves to be 
drawn into the metaphysical speculation as 
to whether a child can or cannot have faith. 
We know that faith has its degrees and 
phases, — that salvation is accommodated to 
the necessities of all classes of mankind, — 
that infancy and childhood are the periods 
of the highest bloom of a confiding disposi- 
tion, — that faith is the gift of God, and not 
the product of human tliought, understand- 
ing, feeling or will,— and that the adminis- 
trations of the Holy Ghost are bound to no 
age or degree of intelligence, but extend as 



300 

well to the infant just from its mother's womb, 
as to the preacher on Zion's walls or the 
apostle amid the scenes of Pentecost. Dr. 
Fuller agrees that infants are saved, and 
refuses to have any thing to say to those 
who deny it. And certainly, if they are 
saved, they must be capable of receiving 
and do receive, such experiences of God's 
methods of sanctification as to meet all the 
necessities of their tender age. Mr. Carson 
does indeed say, that "the gospel has nothing 
to do with infants;" that "the salvation of 
the gospel is confined to believers;" that 
'^hy the gospel no infant can he saved y" that 
" infants who enter heaven must be regener- 
ated, but not by the gospel ; and that, if 
saved, they must be saved in some other 
way than by the gospel ;" p. 173. What a 
happy piece of consolation this for the Chris- 
tian parent at the graves of his little ones I 
Not saved by the gospel, but some other 
way ! Oh, what a melancholy thing then is 
an infant's tomb! for it is written, ^' If any 
man preach any other gospel unto you than 
that ye have received^ let him be accwrsedJ^ 



301 

But, thanks to God ! we are not driven with 
the Baptist to seek some ^^ other gospeV to 
take our dying babes to the world of rest. 
They live for ever by the common salvation 
of the same gospel through which we hope. 
And if they can receive enough of that gos- 
pel to take them to the invisible fold of the 
church triumphant, what daring presumption 
is it for man to interpose and adjudge them 
disqualified for that much more mixed fold 
of the visible church on earth! 

We lay down the broad proposition then, 
that the infants of believing parents are 
qualified for a place in God's kingdom in 
every sense in which that kingdom is con- 
templated in the holy Scriptures. The man 
who will exclude them from God's kingdom, 
in its highest perfection in glory, is no better 
than an atheist ; and if they are fit for the 
kingdom in its highest fullness, they are also 
fit for it in its more earthly forms. The man 
who will deny it is a gainsayer of the Son 
of God ; for Jesus says, '' Of such is the 
kingdom of God;'' Matt. 19 : 14. No matter 
how we apply this passage, no ingenuity 
26* 



302 

under heaven can so warp or twist it as to 
cut out of it Christ's recognition of a fitness 
in children to be partakers of the kingdom 
of God. In any sense that the words will 
bear, they point to qualities in '' little child- 
ren " constituting the very ?nodeI of what is 
necessary to entrance into the divine king- 
dom. Dr. Fuller says that if we understand 
the passage as applying only to infants, it 
would exclude all others, and be equivalent 
to saying that none but infants can be in the 
kingdom. But does he not see, that to con- 
fine it to adults resembling little children 
just as eifectually sweeps away all hope of 
infant salvation ? If little children are not 
included among those whose is the kingdom, 
where will he find authority for believing 
that departed babes are in heaven? Nay, 
if to draw a mere simile was all the Saviour 
meant, he might just as well have said of 
7a7nhs and doves, *' Of such is the kingdom of 
God." But no, says Mr. Carson, " The 
likeness is a likeness in rational and moral 
properties — a likeness of temper, disposition 
or character of mind — not to be found in 



303 

lambs or doves ; these are teachahlenesSy Jiu- 
mility, &c.;" p. 200. What! an infant pos- 
sessed of rational and moral properties, a 
christian ^^ character of mind," a ^'teacha- 
bleness and humility ^^ rendering it the very 
model of a Christian, and yet not to be con- 
sidered a disciple, a learner in Jesus, a 
qualified subject of the divine kingdom ! 
Yea, Paul and Peter, and even ^* an angel 
from heaven " to be gainsayed if they should 
venture to hint such a thing ! Talk of 
*« madness,'^ Dr. Fuller, talk of ^'obliquity 
of mind," talk of " profaning the tender af- 
fections implanted in a parent's bosom, "talk 
of '^ strange fatuity," talk of '^garbling" and 
"perverting" the Scriptures, but heaven 
have mercy upon the teacher of salvation 
who refuses to see in this passage the divine 
recognition in ''little children" of all the 
qualities of a disciple of Jesus! And if 
little children have all the qualities which 
adorn Christ's true disciples, they are fit to 
be made disciples, and, according to the com- 
mission, it is our duty, our solemn duty to 
baptize them. 



304 

In addition to this it is an immutable truth, 
that our blessed Saviour has commanded his 
disciples to suffer little children to come unto 
him, and was '^ much displeased ^^ with those 
who busied themselves to keep them from 
thus coming; Matt. 19 : 14, Mark 10 : 13, 
14. There is such a thing then as ''little 
children," "young children," (Luke, Br e- 
phas,) ^'neio horn hahes,'^ coming unto Christ. 
It is useless for Baptists to suggest philo- 
sophical objections. Christ says it, and his 
words ar§ not to 'be revised and amended by 
the philosophies of ignorant and erring men. 
There is such a thing as the coming of hales 
to Jesus, This is '' a nail in a sure place," 
which must hold even to the day of doom. 
We will not press the fact that the phrase 
" coming to Christ " signifies the mental or 
moral state ol becoming a disciple of Christy 
and indicates all the qualities of discipleship. 
If this is the meaning to be attached to it in 
this place, our case is made out, that infants 
are capable of discipleship, and therefore to 
be baptized. But if this is not to be taken 
as its import in this connection, then what 



305 

other coming to Christ is there, or what other 
coming can there be, but that which is ac- 
complished by means of his appointed ordi- 
nances? Christ, however, has appointed no 
ordinances exclusively for infants; neither 
is it possible, except for those v/ho have 
passed out of earliest infancy, to come to 
him in most of the ordinances he has ap- 
pointed. Infants cannot come to him through 
the preaching of the Word. Infants cannot 
come to him through the medium of their 
own prayers ; neither are they competent to 
come to him in the Holy Supper. There 
remains then lut one way in which they can 
come, and that is in the sacrament of bap- 
tism. And to say that infants are not to be 
baptized, is to say they cannot come to Christ, 
and consequently to make the Son of God a 
liar. 

But there is another very remarkable de- 
claration of the Saviour in connection with 
this subject, which sets forth the capability 
of infants for christian discipleship, if possi- 
ble, in a still stronger light. '* Verily I say 
unto you,^' says he, " v^hosoever shall not 



306 

receive the kingdom of heaven as a little 
CHILD, he shall not enter therein;'' Mark 
10 : 15. Here the Saviour pronounces little 
children not only as having all the qualities 
demanded in a disciple, but as actually so 
receiving his kingdom, and as exercising the 
qualities of a receiver of that kingdom in 
such perfection, that unless unregenerated 
adults become children again, and take to 
themselves the simple, confiding, susceptible 
and teachable disposition of infants,^ all the 
sprinkling or immersion in the world will 
not secure for them a part in the kingdom of 
heaven. So that, however strange it may 
appear, unless every baptism is essential- 
ly AN infant baptism, IT IS NO EFFECTUAL 

BAPTISM AT ALL. " Whosoever shall not re- 
ceive the kingdom of heaven as a little child^ 
shall not enter therein.^' ^'Except ye become 
converted, and become as little children^ ye 
shall not enter into the kingdom of heavenJ' 
What momentous words ! How they exalt 
the character and capabilities of babes, 
though slumbering on the bosoms of their 
mothers! In them the eye of infinite wis- 



30? 

dom sees all that he desires in them who 
would be his disciples. And yet they are 
to be esteemed by men as wanting in those 
very things of which God has pronounced 
them the models ! Though Jesus pressed 
them to his loving heart, declaring that of 
such is his kingdom, we are to refuse to them 
his own appointed sign of what they are ! 
Though the Son of God bid them welcome 
to his arms and blessing as his own choicest 
jewels, those who profess to be his followers 
repulse them as unworthy and unfit to be 
rated among his weakest and frailest disci- 
ples ! Before I give my consent to a system 
so traitorous to my Lord, ^*Let my right 
hand forget her cunning and let my tongue 
cleave to the roof of my mouth !" 



308 



CHAPTER XYir. 

Infants included in '^ all nations " to he dis- 
cipled by Baptism^ and therefore to he 
baptized — Apostles baptized children — 
Meaiiing of oikos — JYota Bene, 

The candid reader, we think, must agree, 
from what has been said, that infants are 
capable of christian discipleship, and that 
they really possess the very perfection and 
model of what is demanded in a disciple of 
Christ. The simple concession that they 
are subjects of salvation establishes that they 
are subjects of grace sufficient to entitle 
them to be marked as members of the great 
household of the redeemed. The words of 
the blessed Saviour himself are so explicit 
on this point, and so often and so solemnly 
repeated, that for any man to deny it is to 
array himself against the very Son of God. 
And if infants are capable of discipleship, 
subjects of gospel grace, and possessed of 
qualities making them models of what a 



809 

disciple of Christ must be, they also, with a 
certainty as clear as demonstration, come 
within the scope and letter of the command 
of Jesus to make disciples by baptism, and 
are to he hapHzed, We cannot conceive of 
an argument on any subject more convincing 
or irrefragable. 

But besides this, the command is given 
with respect to '^ all nations,^^ Who ever 
heard of a nation or community, however 
small, where there are no babes ? And as 
Christ commands us to *^ make disciples of 
all nations " by baptism, before Baptists can 
exclude infants from that command they 
must first either exclude infants from all 
nations, or produce a counter prohibition from 
God to impose violent limitations upon the 
plain and obvious meaning of the Saviour's 
words. The thought that infants are not 
component parts of all nations is the thought 
only of the fool. Where then is the specific 
limitation to v/ords as comprehensive as the 
spread and continuance of the race? If 
God has any where given such a limitation, 
the record of it may be found, and we have 
27 



310 

a right to see it and examine it, and are 
bound to hold Christ's words in their plain- 
est and most natural signification until that 
record has been produced. Let it be forth-* 
coming, and we will respect it and obey it^ 
even under the necessity of maintaining that 
the blessed Jesus, in the last solemn words 
he uttered on earth, did not mean exactly 
what he said. But so long as men fail, as 
they must alv/ays fail, in attempting to array 
the Scriptures against the baptizing of in^ 
fants, let no man expect of us to take up an 
alternative which reflects so unfavorably 
upon the adorable Son of God. In all the 
length and breadth of the inspired volume 
there is not one syllable, in the form of 
command, precept^ explanation or caution, 
to prevent this solemn charge from extend- 
ing to little lahes as well as to men in the 
maturity of life. And when we consider 
that it was given to Jews, with whom it was 
a settled thing in religious matters to extend 
to children the same rites and ordinances 
enjoyed by themselves, — that it was deliv- 
ered to those very men whom its Author 



311 

rebuked in so much displeasure when in a 
mistaken zeal they sought to prevent child- 
ren from being brought unto him, — and that 
he had in the most explicit and impressive 
manner previously referred to little children 
as model subjects of his kingdom, — the evi- 
dence is perfectly conclusive, that when he 
said ^^ all nations ^^ he meant what he said? 
and that it is his will that all the constituents 
of a nation that can by any means be made 
learners in him should be regarded as right- 
ful subjects of baptism. So that it is not 
without solid foundation that the distin- 
guished Danish Dr. Martinsen has said, 
*^ The more infant baptism prevails in the 
world, the more are the words of the Lord 
fulfilled, that the nations should be made 
disciples by baptism and instruction." 

But if all this does not satisfy the reader 
that infants are included in the command, 
we have another argument which will admit 
of no evasion. All must agree that the in- 
spired apostles understood the scope and 
nature of the great commission the ascend- 
ing Redeemer delivered to them, and that 



312 

whatever they did under that commission 
will be unquestionable evidence of the way 
in which they understood it. Did the apos- 
ties then baptize children 1 As we expect 
to be judged by the all-knowing God, we 
believe they did, and that the evidence of it 
is contained in the Scriptures. Though they 
were all missionaries, sent out among unbe- 
lieving Jews and heathens, surrounded by 
circumstances different from those in estab- 
lished christian communities, and of course 
not baptizing any body until some of the 
adults, with whom alone they could begin, 
professed their willingness to -become disci- 
ples, we yet have explicit information that 
they did baptize entire families — oikoi, 
houses — offspring of the same parents — child- 
ren, including any and every age. In Acts 
IG : 14, 15, we read of "a certain woman 
named Lydia, whose heart the Lord opened, 
that she attended to the things that were 
spoken of Paul. And she ivas baptized, and 
HER (oiKos) HOUSEHOLD." In the same 
chapter we also read of a terrified jailor, 
whom Paul directed to " believe on the Lord 



313 

Jesus Christ," promising upon these condi- 
tions that he should be saved, and Ids (oikos) 
house ; whereupon he ^^ was baptized, he and 
ALL HIS." In 1 Cor. 1 : 10, Paul declares, 
*^ And I baptized also the (oikon) household 
OF Stephanus." In Acts 10 : — , we read 
of '' a devout naan, and one that feared God," 
whom Peter baptized '' with all his (oiko) 
house.'' In Acts 18 : 8, we also read of 
"Crispus, the chief ruler of the synagogue," 
who was baptized with '^all his (oiko) house'' 
In 2 Tim. 1:16 and 4 : 19, we find mention 
of ''the (oiko) house of Onesiphorus" in a 
way which leads us to believe that all its 
members had been baptized, and that men- 
tion, moreover, made only for their father's 
sake. Nor is there any good reason why 
the families of Aristobulus and Narcissus 
(Rom. 16 : 10, 11) should not also be in the 
list of apostolic household baptisms. 

Here then are eight oiKor, families^ four 
of them explicitly said to have been baptized 
by the apostles ; and all referred to as chris- 
tian families, and therefore certainly not 
unbaptized. Have we eight instances of 
27* - 



314 

the administration of the Lord's Supper? 
Not half that number. Have we eight 
cases of the change of the Jewish into the 
christian Sabbath? Perhaps not one fourth 
of that number. Yet the communion, and 
this change of day, are vindicated by apos- 
tolic practice as recorded in the New Testa- 
ment. How can we then deny that the 
apostles baptized children with their parents, 
when it is established by a series of instances 
more numerous than can be found in support 
of any other doctrine, principle or practice 
handed down from apostolic times? 

Dr. Fuller thinks that Lydia's *' house- 
hold " consisted only of servants and such 
as were associated with her in conducting 
her business, and that the ^' house " of the 
jailor was perhaps similarly constituted. 
But we deny that oikos, when used as in 
these passages, ever signifies servants and 
attendants in the New Testament. It pri- 
marily denotes hlood lineage — progeny — 
CHILDREN. ** The house (oikos) of Israel " 
means the children of Israel ; " the house of 
David " the lineal descendants of David ; 



315 

*4he house of Judah" the progeny of Judah; 
and not the servants and employees of Is- 
rael, David and Judah. ^* Olkos,'' says 
Aristotle, '-is a companionship connected 
together according to the course of nature,^^ 
** The first social connection," says Cicero, 
'*is the conjugal ; then that of children ; and 
THESE CONSTITUTE A DOMUs — a housc or fam- 
ily, ^^ '^ I know Abraham," saith the Lord> 
^^ that he will command his children^ even 
his HOUSE (oiko) after him. When Joseph 
was made ^' Governor over Egypt " he was 
certainly made master of all Pharaoh's ser- 
vants and slaves; and when it is added that 
he was also made '' Governor over all Pha- 
raoh's house, (oikos,) we are thereby assured 
that even the king's own children were put 
in subjection to him. Indeed we know of 
not one single case in the New Testament, 
in the Septuagint or in all the Greek clas- 
sics, where the word oikos, when used as in 
these accounts of household baptisms, does 
not specifically, directly and unequivocally 
refer to children, and for the most part to 
children exclusively. Talk of oikos meaning 



316 

only attendants and slaves ! Why, every 
Greek scholar would laugh to scorn such 
an idea, and utterly despise the man as a 
fool who should undertake to maintain it. 
It has no such meaning. Nor is it more 
certain that the word dog does not mean a 
sheep or an ass than that oikos never means 
only servants. It every where denotes,blood 
lineage, the fruit of conjugal union ; and if 
Dr. Fuller can have this without infants, we 
would call the scientific world to come and 
behold the greatest wonder that has been 
exhibited since the creation. Surely we 
need not be surprised that a man should not 
find infants included in a command to bap- 
tize ^^ all nations," when he fails to discover 
them among the fruits of those methods of 
procreation determined and established in 
our nature by the hand that made us ! 

We hold that oikos means the fruit of 
wedlock — progeny — children; and that there 
can be no oikos without children. The oikoi 
of Lydia, the jailor, Cornelius and Stephanus 
were therefore the children of Lydia, the 
jailor, Cornelius and Stephanus. And as by 



317 

children we mean children, it remains for 
Dr. Fuller to show that these were adults 
before he can set aside the conclusion that 
the apostles verily baptized children. But 
although he has all the force of the laws 
of language and all the conclusions of the 
most every day observation against him, he 
must needs make the attempt. He tells us 
that Lydia's children were grown men, be- 
cause they "are expressly declared to have 
been brethren, whom the apostles saw and 
comforted " when released from prison ; (p. 
142.) Did ever any man see such contu- 
macy and such determination at all hazards 
to carry a sectarian dogma ? Let the reader 
but examine the 16th chapter of Acts and he 
will see that a more glaring perversion of 
God's word is hardly to be found. Paul 
was at " Derbe and Lystra." He there 
found "a certain disciple named Timothy." 
"Him Paul would have to go forth with 
him." And " when they (Paul and Silas and 
Timothy) had gone throughout Phrygia and 
the region of Galatia, they passed by Misia 
and came down to Troas." A vision appeared 



318 

to Paul ; and after he had seen the vision, 
Luke says, '^ We (Paul, Silas,' Timothy and 
I, Luke) endeavored to go into Macedonia. 
Therefore, loosing from Troas, we came to 
Samothracia, and the next day to Neapolis, 
and from thence to Philippi.'^ '' And on the 
Sabbath we went out to the Proseucha, and 
WE sat down and spake to the women that 
resorted thither, . . Lydia . heard us . 
and constrained us to come into her house 
and ahide tliere?^ Who then were this we 
and us, if not Paul, Silas, Timothy, and 
Luke, the writer of the account ? This was 
- the company journeying together and which 
lodged together at the house of Lydia. 
" And it came to pass," says Luke, " as we 
went to prayer a certain damsel possessed 
with a spirit of divination met us ; the same 
followed us, . But Paul, being grieved, cast 
out the spirit. And when her masters saw 
that the hope of their gains was gone, they 
caught Faul and Silas, (not Timothy and 
Luke,) . laid ma*ny stripes upon them and 
cast them into prison." Paul and Silas 
were now in jail, but " the hrethreiit^' Tim- 



319 

Othy and Luke of course, continued at theif 
lodgings in the house of Lydia. During the 
flight God heard the prayers of the prisoners 
and miraculously struck off their chains* 
** And they went out of the prison, and en- 
tered into the house of Lydia, and saw " the 
Irelhren'^ What brethren? A Sabbath 
school child would not miss the true answer* 
Certainly not Lydia^s grown up sons ; for it 
is no where to be found that she ever had 
sons, much less sons grown up at that period 
of her life. Who then were the parties 
abiding in Lydia's house, entitled to be noted 
down as so peculiarly ^' tJie brethren " of 
Paul and Silas ? Unquestionably their com* 
panions in travel and fellow^missionarles of 
the cross, Timothy and Luke. 

There is no proof then that Lydia's child- 
ren were any thing but children. And if 
even the youngest of them was only less 
than ten years of age, the last refuge of the 
Baptists is swept away, and the truth, rising 
to assert its rightful empire, proclaims to the 
four winds that the apostles did bajHize chikU 
rcriy and regarded themselves as authorized 



mo 

and bound to do so under their commission* 
A single fact like this is invincible in our 
favor against all abstract or analogical rea* 
soning that the human mind shall ever breeds 
Dfo Fuller also insinuates that the jailor's 
children were not children, because it is 
said that *^ he rejoiced^ believing in God, with 
all his house. ^^ See there, says he, " after 
all these babes are old enough to know 
spiritual joy and to utter praises to God V^ 
Well, be it so, though the record no where 
says it; we know that God has '^perfected 
praise^' out of the mouths of ^^ hales and 
SUCKLINGS.'* Tender infancy presents no 
insuperable impediment to it* Jeremiah was 
sanctified before he was born. John was 
^'filled with the Holy Ghost even from his 
mother*s womb.'^ Baxter loved God prior 
to his earliest recollection. And if Dr* 
Puller will visit some of the Sunday schools 
of Baltimore he will find infant classes ut* 
tering praises as perfect and from hearts as 
pure as ever honored the earthly assemblies 
of God's worshipers. And if the jailor's 
babes could know joy and utter praise, they 



321 

still may have been mere "babes and suck- 
lings," or else the testimony of God must 
give place to the narrow conceits of man's 
philosophy. 

But, says Dr, Fuller, "such infants as 
these I shall be happy to baptize every day 
of my life." Ah ! and vi^here would he 
get the authority for it ? From the com- 
mission ? He says the commission utter- 
ly excludes infants. In apostolic prac- 
tice ? He holds that the apostles never 
baptized any but adults. By what right 
then would he baptize " babes and suck- 
lings ?" The case admits of but one alter- 
native. It is either his duty or it is not his 
duty to baptize all such infants as Jeremiah, 
John, Israel and Baxter. If such is his 
duty, then there must be divine authority 
for baptizing some babes, and his whole po- 
sition is subverted. And if such is not his 
duty, then he must agree that there is more 
authority to baptize an old conjurer, hard- 
ened in sin by the confirmed habit of many 
years, and actually '^ in the gall of bitterness 
and the bonds of iniquity," than there is for 
28 



3^2 

giving tbie sign of consecration to Christ to 
those ^' tales and sucklings '' out of ivliost 
mouths God himself has perfected praise. 
Dr. Fuller nnay take either side of the di- 
lemma^ and one side he must take, and his 
refusal to baptize the children of believers 
shoves itself to be an utter absurdit)''. 

The record, however, says nothing about 
«' spiritual joy" or *' praises to God" in 
connection with the jailor's children. The 
words are explicit that he liimself did the 
rejoicing, believing in God." This he didj 
not in the absence of his family, but ^^ with 
all his house ^^^ those old enough sympathiz- 
ing with him in the joy of his marvelous 
deliverance from impending death, and the 
youngest not excluded from the scene of his 
festivity. Nay, if the jailor's children were 
adults, how did it happen that Paul prom- 
ised salvation to them all on the condition 
of their father's faith ? The apostle said to 
the jailor alone, '^ Believe on the Lord Jesus 
Christ and thou shalt be saved, and thy 
(oikos) children,'^ Upon the Baptist theory 
let Dr* Fuller explain this if he can, and 



323 

tell us whether, when he immerses an aged 
father, he thereupon promises salvation to 
all his grown up sons and daughters? No, 
no, Dr. Fuller, your jocularity with Dr. 
Kurtz will not relieve the stern difficulties 
of your forced interpretation of this passage. 
Admit that the children of believers are 
entitled to baptism, and every thing is ex- 
plained ; deny this, and the whole case is 
for ever inexplicable. The Bible says that 
the jailor's children were baptized along 
with himself, and that salvation was prom- 
ised to them on the ground of their father's 
faith; and the double inference is therefore 
inevitable, that they were not of an age to 
make a christian profession for themselves 
and that the apostles did actually baptize 
children. 

As to the children of Stephanus, Dr. Ful- 
ler holds that they were all adults when 
baptized ; first, because it is said that *' many 
of the Corinthians believed and were bap- 
tized;" but there is no evidence that Ste- 
phanus was a Corinthian, he and his house 
(oikosj being "the first fruits of Achaia j'^ 



324 

kai second, because it is said of them thai 
they had "addicted themselves to the minis-- 
try of the saints,'' But great changes occu^r 
in grov/ing families in the course of eight or 
ten years. The boy in the year 51, when 
Stephanus and his house were baptized, 
would naturally be a man in the year 59, 
when this record was made. The eldest of 
the children of Stephanus may have been 10 
or 15 years old when they were baptized, 
whilst others may have been mere babes ; 
and yet it might easily be said of them, ten 
years afterward, that they had shown much 
kindness to their fellow Christians. David 
slew Goliah and put the Philistine army to 
flight when but a ruddy youth. Samuel 
served as a minister in the tabernacle when 
but a little boy. Our Sabbath schools con- 
tain many a child entitled to be called an 
angel of mercy for its good deeds toward the 
poor and suffering. And why could not 
these children, especially under a pious 
father's guidance, some of whom were now 
pretty well grown up, addict themselves to 
ministering unto the saints, although ten 



325 

years previous some of them were no more 
than babes ? Does Dr. Fuller hold that 
"once an infant always an infant," and 
maintain that because this family was noted 
for its kindness in A. D. 60, not one of its 
members could have been under ten or 
twelve years old in A. D. 50 ? If not, then 
all the stress which he lays upon the chris- 
tian activity of these " first fruits of Achaia," 
ten years after they were baptized, must 
pass for nothing ; and we are left to believe 
that the children of Stephanus, when bap- 
tized by Paul, were no more than children. 
Indeed the very manner in which we come 
to know any thing about this baptism is 
conclusive evidence that even so long after 
the baptizing had been performed these 
children were yet too young to be of any 
material force in the affairs of the Church. 
Factions had sprung up at Corinth. One 
was for Paul, another for Apollos and a 
third for Peter. A letter is written to re- 
buke these disorders. Paul, the writer of 
it, sets himself to show the absurdity of such 
a thing as a Paul party in that Church. He 
28* 



326 

tells them that he had been crucified for no 
body, and that with his own hand he had not 
even baptized any but Crispus and Gaius, 
who do not seem to have taken the general 
infection. These were the only men of in- 
fluence who could so much as claim him as 
their baptizer. And then, with a certain 
tardiness, as if he were undecided as to 
whether it would be worth while to mention 
it, he remarks, ^^ However, I haplized also the 
household of Stephanus,^^ intimating that they 
were hardly to be taken into account on this 
question, as they were not of sufficient influ- 
ence or age to be much support to any party. 
He first passes them altogether, *' I thank 
God that I baptized none of you hut Crispus 
and Gains,'' We demand of Dr. Fuller the 
reason of this total omission. Had Paul 
forgotten ? Can an inspired man, recording 
his own official acts, forget ? There is no 
explanation, and there can be none, except 
upon the ground that these children of Ste- 
phanus were yet minors, even eight or ten 
years after their baptism, and for that reason 
quite out of the question which the apostle 



327 

had before him. If they had been adults 
they were just as likely to be Paulians, be- 
cause Paul had baptized them, as Crispu® 
and Gains; and it could only be because 
they were still too young to have any thing 
to do with these party disputes that Paul 
esteemed it hardly worthwhile to refer to 
them in such a connection. If this does not 
prove that children were among the subjects 
of apostolic baptism we know nothing about 
the force of evidence. 

We therefore hold Dr. Fuller to the plain 
and direct meaning of the word oikos. It 
denotes children. And when we have the 
unequivocal testimony of the Scriptures that 
the apostles did baptize oikoi, before the 
dogma of the Baptists can stand, they must 
prove that the members of these oikoi were 
all adults. We have the word which, as 
certainly as any word in any language, 
comprehends infants ; and we are therefore 
bound to hold that infants are included and 
were baptized until the most unmistakable 
proof to the contrary has been produced. 
Such proof has never been produced. 'A 



328 

book, written about thirty years ago, to 
prove that infants were included in the oikoi 
baptized by the apostles, was submitted to 
the Baptists of Britain with a challenge for 
their refutation. Years passed, but no refu- 
tation was attempted. The book was even 
submitted to a Baptist association, with the 
most respectful solicitation that they would 
either admit the truth of its positions or have 
them refuted ; but the request was answered 
with a formal resolution to disregard it ! 
And from that day to the present moment 
Taylor'' s Facts and Evidences on the Subjects 
of Christian Baptism remain unanswered, 

AND WITHOUT AN ATTEBIPT AT AN ANSWER, hy 

any Baptist on either side of the Atlantic ocean. 

If the baptizing of infants then is to be 
denounced as such a horrible crime, let 
Baptists first show us how they exempt 
God's inspired apostles from the dreadful 
crimination by answering the invincible po- 
sitions of that learned advocate of the truth 
whom Dr. Fuller mentions only to call " the 
silly editor of CalmetJ' 

Indeed, with the facts before us, that oikos 



m 

means family, and that the apostles baptized 
certainly not less than eight such familiesj 
the plainest common sense will infer with 
the firmest confidence that they must have 
hajpt'ated infants. Take eight families at a 
venture in the street, or eight pews contain- 
ing families in a place of worship, and in all 
of them not to find one child under ten years 
of age would be a circumstance sufficiently 
strange to be heralded from sea to sea, as 
showing that the world is coming to an end 
sure enough. Take the average number of 
children in a family to be sis: > these eight 
families would include forty-eight children \ 
and yet among forty-eight children of par*- 
ents not past the busy activities of middle 
life, not to find one child under eight or ien 
years of age would be a prodigy. Who can 
believe it ? Who then can doubt that the 
apostles baptized infants? 

As the preceding chapters of our Review 
were appearing in the Lutheran Observer, 
another attempt was made by our Baptist 
friends to excite prejudice against us and 
our articles. The full capacity of the Bap- 

i 



330 

tist Press in Baltimore, was called into play 
to bespatter us with sundry sorts of bilious 
secretions which wounded fanaticism is apt 
to generate, whilst not one single word is 
said in the way of an answer to our argu- 
ments. We give the reader what notice we 
bestowed upon the amiable production. If 
our brethren of the True Union do not mus- 
ter better support for their cause, alas for 
the prospect before them ! 

N. B. It is not a little amusing to see 
how our Baptist friends sly^ being affected 
by our Review, and what demonstrations 
they are making with regard to it. '^ The 
True Union,^^ a Baptist paper of Baltimore, 
honors us with its special attention a second 
time, whilst protesting that we ^* scarce de- 
serve even a passing notice !" Its editor is 
in an alarming fit of pugnacity over our ar- 
ticles, and yet insists that they *' are mere 
reproductions of the weapons used by better 
men!!" He thinks our positions wholly 
untenable and our arguments mere ^'sophis- 
tries," and yet answers them only by pro- 
nouncing us a " a stout slanderer,^' *^ setting 



33i 

^l defiance all the fews of God and man,^^ 
a ^'forger of wholesale falsehood to injure 
the Baptists," and simply '* as destitute of 
heart religion as a bitter fountain is of sweet 
water!!!" All this is doubtless very re- 
freshing to his patrons just at this particular 
time, as it must be to all interested in this 
debate. 

A few weefes since we sug-gested to *'The 
True Union " and its friends a short *• cate^ 
diism,^^ to whi^h we solicit'ed and the public 
expected a reply when they should have oc- 
casion to refer to us again> The concluding 
questions of that catechism related to som® 
interesting particulars and went directly to 
some of the points between us, and it is a 
little surprising that they bav-e ventured upon 
this new outburst without the least attempt 
to settle up the old account. It may be that 
they have good reasons for thus dodging the 
issue, whilst personal invective and vituper- 
ation are substituted for argument; but it 
would be well to have the omission ex*- 
plained, lest readers should take up the 
notion that they cannot^ or have not the mag- 



Banimity to answer the few questions we 
gave them. 

It will be borne in mind that our articles 
are all defensive. We are replying to an 
attack made upon us and the great body of 
the Church. And it looks badly for men to 
iy into a passion over what they themselves 
have occasioned. Spectators may perhaps 
infer that these assailants either did not 
©ount the cost, or that their resources are 
near the end. Now for the public to take 
up any such impressions would certainly do 
the Baptists quite as much ^^ injury ^^ as that 
anticipated from our alleged "forgeries.'^ 
Let the editor of '' The True Union '' there- 
fore profit by these Ixints and make the ne- 
eessary emendations hereafter. 



333 



CHAPTER XVIII. 

Testimony of the early Fathers — Augustine — 
Origen — Tertullian — Irenmus — Justin — 
Modern Authors — Outlines of other argu- 
ments. 

To what has been said in proof that the 
apostles baptized infants we will yet add the 
testimony of the early fathers. 

It is certain, from their own testimony, 
that the apostles were at great pains to es- 
tablish means of conveying their directions^ 
injunctions or traditions to succeeding gener- 
ations. Peter says, ** I will endeavor, that 
after my decease, you make mention of 
these things," and thereby perpetuate the 
remembrance of them ; 2 Epistle 1 : 15. 
Paul says, ^' The things which thou hast 
heard of me (dia) for the purpose of instruct^ 
iw^ many witnesses, the same commit thou 
to faithful men, who shall be able to teach 
others also ;" 2 Tim. 2 : 2. With these 
29 



334 

facts before us, all must admit that the testi- 
mony of the men who lived near the apostolic 
age must be of very great weight in helping 
to decide what was apostolic practice. It is 
useless to argue a point so self-evident. 

It is also agreed, even by the most rabid 
railers against infant baptism, that this has 
been an established thing in all the great 
divisions of the Church since the fourth 
century. Augustine flourished at the con- 
clusion of the fourth century, and his testi- 
mony is direct to the point, that the baptizing 
of infants was then the common practice, 
and that it was apostolica traditio — a thing 
derived from the apostles, Chrysostom lived 
at the same time and left a similar testimony. 
A half generation earlier lived Gregory 
Nazianzen, who heartily shames the mother 
who hesitated to bring her child to be bap. 
tized because of its tender age, urging that 
" Hannah consecrated Samuel to God before 
his birth and devoted him to the priesthood 
as soon as he was born," and that '"so 
children should he baptized in their tenderest 
age, though having yet no idea of perdition 



335 

or grace. About the year 250 there lived 
a certain minister by the name of Fidus, 
who was somewhat squeamish about bap- 
tizing new-born babes, because he was ex- 
pected to kiss them after baptizing them. 
He therefore brought it before a council of 
sixty. six bishops to decide whether baptism, 
for the sake of decency, ought not to be de- 
nied to infants until after they were eight days 
old. The question shows at once that infant 
baptism was then the common practice ; and 
the council, with the martyr Cyprian at its 
head, at once unanimously declared that 
"the mercy and grace of God are to be de- 
nied to none from the moment he is born," 
and that as baptism is not denied to the 
greatest offenders when they come to believe, 
so it certainly is not to be arbitrarily with- 
held from a new-born babe, which has no 
crimes. 

Origen was born in 185 and died in 254. 
He was a distinguished man and possessed 
many uncommon advantages. His father, 
grandfather and great-grandfather all were 
Christians. At the most moderate reckoning 



336 

his great-grandfather lived within twelve 
years of the death of Mark and about twenty 
years cotemporaneous with the apostle John. 
For nearly a hundred years the Origen 
family had lived with the apostles, and their 
immediate successors, and the other '' faith- 
ful men," some of whom must yet have been 
alive in Origen's time. He alsQ; traveled 
extensively, visited various apostolic church- 
es and resided in many of them, in order the 
most fully to inform himself respecting what- 
ever accounts of Christ and his apostles 
were still preserved. And it is simply im- 
possible, under such circumstances, that the 
practice of the Church, derived from the 
apostles, in a matter of daily occurrence, 
could have been forgotten, or suffered such a 
radical change, without his having been 
aware of it. And yet he testifies, '^ The 
Church RECEIVED FROM THE APOSTLES the in- 
junction (traditio) to give baptism even to 

INFANTS, ACCORDING TO THE SAYING OF OUR 

Lord concerning infants;'' Orig. in Rom., 
lib. 5, cap. 6, p. 543, 

A little earlier than Origen lived Tertul- 



337 

lian, who was the first opposer of infant 
baptisnQ that has ever been heard of. But 
his very opposition proves that it was a 
common thing in his day. He certainly 
would not have undertaken to wage war 
against a mere phantom. No sane man 
would preach reform in a thing that never 
existed. And yet, as early as the conclusion 
of the second century, within eighty years 
of the time of the apostles, we find him in- 
veighing against the baptizing of infants as 
the great defect of the age, and therefore a 
custom as wide-spread as Christendom itself. 
At that period men were still living who 
were born before the apostles all were dead. 
And how does it happen that in one lifetime 
from the apostles a practice v/hich Baptists 
tell us is such a dreadful apostacy from 
the teachings of Jesus and the example of 
his inspired servants, should thus have es- 
tablished itself in every church all over the 
christian world? If this was an innovation 
—if it was so contrary to apostolic injunc- 
tion and example — if it was the introduction 
of such a dreadful scourge, at war with all 
29* 



338 

the inculcations of the Son of God, — where 
was John the apostle, and Timothy and 
Titus, and the " faithful men, able to teach 
others also? Where was Polycarp, and 
Irenseus, and Barnabas, and Hermas, that 
not one of them ever rose up to rebuke and 
expose the delusion of those who would thus 
forsake the commandment of God for an 
ordinance of man ? Indeed the very argu- 
ments which Tertullian employed against 
infant baptism show that he himself consid- 
ered it impossible to deny its apostolic origin 
and felt all the time that lie was laboring to 
introduce a new practice. He believed that 
baptism was the washing away of sins ; and 
his great argument was, that it should be 
delayed until the periods of greatest tempta- 
tion had passed, lest by sinning after baptism 
there would be found no more remission. 
This was the foundation of all his opposition, 
and led him to oppose the baptism of unmar- 
ried grown people as well as little children. 
But if the baptizing of infants was an antL 
christian innovation, there was another ar- 
gument within his reach, and which he must 



339 

needs have hit upon, far more eonclusive 
than this. Why did he not brand the prac- 
tice as a noyelty and fiction of the day ? 
Why did he not declare it to be a thing 
unknown to the apostles and apostolic 
churches ? Why did he not say that it was 
not so from the beginning? If it was an 
innovation there were men then living within 
whose recollection it was introduced. Why 
then did he not appeal to them and say : The 
traditions of the apostles were delivered to 
your grandfathers, ask them, for they know 
and will tell you that baptism was never 
designed for infants? Such an argument 
would have been conclusive. It would have 
ended the question and given triumph to his 
opposition. Why did he not use it? It is 
evident that he could not. And the simple 
fact that he passes it in silence, reasoning 
only from his own principles, shows that 
anti-pedobaptism was no stronger in its re- 
sources then than now, and that the baptizing 
of infants is a practice as certainly derived 
from the apostles as the church itself. 

Polycarp was the pupil of the apostle John, 



340 

and Irena3us was the disciple of Polycarp. 
At an advanced age Irenseus says of bis 
teacher, "I remember his discourses to the 
people concerning the conversations he had 
with John the apostle and others who had 
seen the Lord; how he rehearsed their dis- 
courses, and what he heard them that were 
eye-witnesses of the Word of Life say of 
our Lord and of his miracles and doctrine." 
This shows that Polycaj'p had used his op- 
portunities. He was himself master of what- 
ever was to be known. He had been care- 
ful to tell all that he knew of our Lord, of 
the apostles, and of their doctrine and prac- 
tice. These discourses had made a deep 
and unfading impression on the mind of 
Irenseus. And Irenseus was yet a living 
teacher when Tertullian broached his doc- 
trine for the delay of baptism until the 
season of severest temptation was past. If 
infant baptism had not been sanctioned by 
the example of the apostles, Irenseus must 
have known it, and Tertullian might have 
appealed to him and settled the question. 
Or if Tertullian's doctrine had had apostolic 



341 

sanction, Irenseus certainly could not have 
been ignorant of it, and would have support- 
ed the attempted reformation of his neighbor. 
But the teachings of Tertullian were dead- 
born and fell lifeless upon the ear of the 
Church. 

Nay, Irenseus, so far from presenting in- 
fant baptism as -opposed to the practice of 
the apostles and the doctrine of Christ, has 
left a passage on record which, though much 
debated, supports the doctrine of infant bap- 
tism against all the ingenuity and learning 
that have been marshaled to break its force, 
and which assigns it a place in the very 
marrow of the gospel. " Christ^'^ says he, 
^'came to save all — all who by him are re- 
born OF God, infants, little ojses, 
CHILDREN, youths and persons of mature age j 
therefore he passed through these several 
ages.^' The relevancy of this passage rests 
upon the phrase ^^ reborn of God^^ — renas* 
cunter in Deum.^' We maintain that it refers 
to baptism, and that Irenseus here recognizes 
the baptism of " infants, little ones and 
children" as well as persons of mature age. 



342 

Baptists insist that it means "spiritual re- 
generation," " conversion to God," *' moral 
renewal in Christ." Dr. Fuller thinks that 
"Prof. Sears has settled for ever this matter 
by an elaborate investigation of the works 
of Irenaeus." What Mr. Sears has said we 
are not informed ; but we have before us 
Dr. Chase's tract on the subject, which Dr. 
Fuller pronounces ^^most learned'^ and found- 
ed upon the "reading and re-reading of ev- 
ery line of all the extant works of Irenseus." 
And if Prof. Sears has done as much toward 
the settlement of the matter as Dr. Chase, it 
is in a different direction from that supposed 
by either of them After all his " elaborate 
investigation," Dr. Chase says, " I do not 
hesitate to admit that Irenseus sometimes 
speaks of regeneration as being connected with 
BAPTISM." We also learn from this tract 
that Irenseus calls the commission to make 
disciples by baptism ^^the authority of re- 
generation UNTO God;" not the power to 
renew men's spiritual nature, but the right 
to administer baptism. This too is precisely 
the phrase used in our quotation. In the 



343 

same tract we also find that Irenseus calls 
"the one healing remedy by which our sins 
are removed," ** logiko baptismata — a dis- 
criminate or proper baptismJ^ The Gnostics, 
who taught a salvation by mere internal il- 
lumination, he denounced as ** men sent by 
Satan to deny the baptism of regeneration unto 
God.^^ The baptismal application of water 
to the body he calls the ^'regeneration of the 
fiesUr How then dare Dr. Fuller say, that 
when Irenajus speaks of infants being "re- 
horn unto God "or " regenerated of God,^^ 
he means spiritual renovation to the entire 
exclusion of baptism ? Dr. Chase expressly 
testifies that, " in some degree at least, he 
(Irenseus) confounded the sign with the thing 
signified — confounded baptism with regenera^ 
tion ;^^ and if he confounded them at all, 
where is the evidence that he viewed them 
distinct from each other in this quotation? 
Our opponents themselves being witnesses, 
Irenseus over and over again, in multiform 
profusion, calls baptism regeneration, our 
renatus in Deum, our re-birth to God ; and 
when he speaks of ** infants, and little ones^ 



344 

and children^ and youths, and persons of 
mature age," all "re-born of God " to salva- 
tion in Jesus Christ, it is useless for Bap- 
lists or any body else to come in to tell us 
that the passage has no allusion to baptism. 
But suppose we take the Baptist theory, 
that the phrase means spiritual regeneration, 
conversion to God and moral renewal in 
Christ. Will that take from the passage its 
testimony in favor of infant baptism '? Can 
we put asunder what God hath joined to- 
gether? If *4nfants, and little ones, and 
children" are spiritually regenerated, con- 
verted to God and renewed in Christ, and 
Irenasus looked upon them in this light, 
would or could he have consistently denied 
to them the outward sign and sacrament of 
these sublime spiritual transactions ? If 
infants are the subjects of all these inward 
experiences, and are ** reborn of God," are 
they not disciples of Christ, and to be marked 
as disciples according to the Saviour's com- 
mand? So that whether Iren?eus meant 
spiritual regeneration or not, haptism is in- 
evitably implicated and goes along with the 



345 

meaning of the phrase as cer'ainly as the 
shadow follows the substance. Dr. Neander 
says that ** in Irena^us baptism and regener- 
ation are intimately connected," and that 
^* it is difficult to conceive how the term re- 
generallon can be employed, in reference to 
this age, to denote any thing else than bap- 
tism." He therefore regards this passage 
as presenting direct and incontrovertible 
proof of the existence of infant baptism in 
the time of Irenseus. But if this regenera- 
tion (renascunter in Deiim) does not denote 
haptism, it certainly does denote every thing 
that can entitle a man to baptism. In either 
case "infants and little ones ' are designated 
as proper subjects of baptism ; and that by 
a man of God who received the apostolic 
traditions from a companion and pupil of 
him who lay closest on the Saviour's heart. 
Can any one doubt then as to the views and 
practices of the apostles on this subject? 

Justin Martyr lived still nearer to the time 

of the apostles. In one of his Apologies, 

written about the year 148, he says there 

were among Christians in his time many 

30 



346 

persons of both sexes, some sixty and some 
seventy years old, who had been made discU 
pies to Christ from their infancy^ and con- 
tinued undefiled all their lives. If these 
persons were made disciples in infancy, they 
were baptized in infancy. If they were 
baptized but twenty years before Justin was 
born, they were baptized before all the 
apostles were dead ; and we thus have in- 
fant baptism carried up to the very life-time 
of the apostles. And if infant baptism was 
practiced whilst the apostles yet lived, who 
can say that it was without apostolic sanc- 
tion ? Dr. Fuller says that Justin in this 
passage does not allude to baptism. But as 
one assertion is as good in the way of proof 
as another, we say he does refer to baptism, 
and in the very words of the commission. 
And Dr. Neander says that he here *' beyond 
QUESTION refers to baptism,.^' How indeed 
can infants be made disciples to Christ, ac- 
cording to the commission, but by baptism? 
Dr. Fuller professes to quote assertions 
from sundry modern authors, to the effect 
that there were no infant baptisms in the 



347 

first two centuries. We have not tinae to 
point out the perversions to be found in this 
list. A number of writers have asserted as 
he says. The first was Salmasius, a French 
critic^ who died in 1653. He was after- 
wards quoted by Suicer. And the authori- 
ties of these names has misled other authors. 
But no thorough investigator of the original 
sources of evidence, so far as we know, has 
ever taken such a position. Vossius, Luth- 
er, Gerhard, Baier, Chemnitz, Quenstedt^ 
Forbes, Hammond, Walker, Dupin, Bing- 
ham and Wall, — names that will stand on 
this subject against any in modern Christen- 
dom, — all take the ground that infant bap- 
tism is a thing warranted in the Scriptures 
of truth and handed down to us from the 
times of the apostles. 

We need go no further. Jesus commands 
us to make disciples of all nations, baptizing 
them in the triune name. He himself has 
declared infants capable of becoming disci- 
ples and as furnishing the very model of 
discipleship. In every neighborhood, in all 
nations, we find infants. Inspiration informs 



348 

us that the apostles baptized families. We 
trace the baptizing of infants back in history 
into the very life-time of the apostles. We 
find the best, wisest and vast majority of 
christian men, in all ages and in all coun- 
tries, practicing and defending it as a sacred 
duty. And how can it be viewed as any 
thing other than a divine appointment, lying 
in the very bosom of Christianity since the 
beginning ? If it was not introduced by the 
apostles, when was it introduced ? If it was 
not begun by authority of God, by whose 
authority was it begun ? To these inquiries 
all history is silent; and the world-wide 
practice of infant baptism stands forth a 
greater riddle than the pyramids of Egypt 
or the wasting memorials of Yucatan ; Chris- 
tians are dumb as Fejees as to the origin of 
some of their most cherished rites; and the 
christian world in a day completely changed 
one of its commonest services without having 
been made conscious of it for fifteen hundred 
years ! 

We had noted a number of other points 
upon which to remark in connection with 



349 

the warrants God has given to his Church 
for the baptism of infants ; but we can now 
do no more than allude to them. We can- 
not argue them for want of space. 

If we look at the Church under the former 
dispensations, we see that infants at eight 
days old were received into it by explicit 
divine direction. God has but one Church, 
and that essentially the same in all time. 
And as God sanctioned and appointed infant 
membership in his Church among the Jews, 
with whom Christianity originated, until 
God himself shall annul that appointment, 
infant church-membership must continue to 
bear his sanction. 

Dr. Fuller denies that baptism in any 
sense has come into the room of circum- 
cision ; but Paul calls baptism " the circum- 
cision of Christ," (Col. 2:11;) and it is as 
clear as light that baptism now does fulfil 
an office once performed by circumcision 
among the Jews. Both are signs of interest 
in the covenant of God's love. The reason 
for extending one to children holds equally 
with regard to the other. And as infants 
30* 



350 

were to be circumcised, what is more natu- 
ral than the inference that they are also to 
be baptized ? 

All the Mosaic baptisms extended to in- 
fants as well as adults. Children were 
liable to the same contaminations with their 
parents, and had to undergo the same pro- 
cesses of purification. When proselytes 
were baptized their children were all bap- 
tized with them. And when the apostles, 
being Jews, were sent to baptize all nations^ 
how could they have thought of excluding 
infants without specific directions to that 
effect ? 

It formerly was argued by Baptists, that 
baptism is a positive ordinance, and that no 
one can have any right to it but.thos-e spe- 
cifically designated. But where then is the 
right of women to partake of ihe Lord's 
Supper ? This is a positive ordinance ; and 
yet, in all the Bible, women are no where 
specified as entitled to it. By analogy and 
inference alone are we authorized to give 
the communion to women. Analogy and 
inference then are also sufficient to warrant 



351 

the baptizing of infants. And when we see 
that every thing iniplied in baptisni was 
done for infants up to the linne it was insti- 
tuted, without specific information to the 
contrary, analogy binds us to the conclusion 
that baptism is not exclusively for adults. 

The passage of the Israelites through the 
Red Sea is expressly noted by Paul as a 
type of baptism. " These things happened 
unto them as our examples ^ (tiipoi,) upon 
whom the ends of the world are come/' 
As was their baptism unto Moses, in the 
cloud and in the sea, such is our baptism in 
the name of the Lord Jesus, the prophet like 
unto Moses. Paul is also very particular, 
and would not have us to be ignorant, how 
that all who came out of Egypt — young and 
old, sons and daughters, they and their little 
ones — **ALL passed through the sea, and were 
ALL baptized;" (1 Cor. 10 : 1-11.) And if 
ALL, including '^little ones/' were baptized 
unto Moses, and that baptism was a type or 
example of baptism in the name of Christ — 
all of which the inspired apostle is so anx- 
ious to impress upon his readers — is it not 



352 

infallibly certain that infants are to be bap- 
tized as well as adults? 

The Greek words pistos and pistoi — a 
faithful and faithfuls — when applied to per- 
sons in the New Testament, designate them 
as church-members, as persons belonging to 
the household of faith. See 1 Cor. 4 : 17 ; 
Eph. 6 : 21 ; Col. 4 : 9 ; 1 Pet. 5:12; Acts 
16 : 1 ; 1 Tim. 5 : 16—6 : 2—4 : 12 ; Eph. 
1 ; 1 ; Col. 1 : 2. The term implies all that 
is included in christian discipleship, and in 
the case of Lydia it is so strongly connected 
with baptism as to be interchangeable with 
it. *' When she was baptized with her fam- 
ily, she besought us saying, ^^U (since) you 
have adjudged me to be a pistaen — a faithful 
to the Lord — come into my house and abide 
there;" (Acts 16 : 15.) The sense in this 
passage would be the same if we were to 
put the term baptized in the place of faithful 
and faithful for baptized. It is impossible 
to conceive how an individual can. he one 
and not the other, as the Christian Church 
is constituted. And to call one a faithful is 
equivalent to calling him a christian brother^ 



353 

a full disciple of Christ. But Paul to Tims 
(1:6) explicitly applies this term to children. 
Speaking of the qualities to.be possessed by 
a bishop, the apostle says, *' He must be the 
husband of one wife, having children (tekna) 
who are faithfuls." The word tekna is 
used to denote the children, ^'•from two years 
old and under,^^ that Herod ordered to be 
slain in and about Bethlehem. A certain 
Baptist writer admits that it means *'«// mi- 
nors from twenty days old.'^ The apostle 
makes no distinction between the eldest and 
the youngest. Of what ever age, he here 
makes it a part of a bishop's business to 
have his children faithfuls. We find also 
that John in his Epistle, which is written to 
faithfuls, (1 Jno. 5 : 13.) distinguishes be- 
tween fathers^ young men and little child. 
REN ; (2 : 12, 13.) Would the apostles have 
given these significant christian titles to 
little children whilst they denied to them 
christian church-membership and christian 
baptism? It cannot be. 

We cannot see occasion then to add any 
thing more. In winding up a very well- 



354 

conducted argument on the subject of " do- 
mestic slavery," Dr. Fuller finally settles 
down upon this: ''What God sanctioned in 
the Old Testament^ and permilied in the New, 
cannot he a sin,'' We agree with the logic 
of that argument and with the conclusion 
which it is designed to support. And if the 
Doctor will apply it to the subject of infant 
church-membership, he will find it vastly 
more powerful against him on this question 
than it was /or him in the cause in which , 
he called it to his aid. God not only 
^^ sanctioned '^ iufeint church-membership in 
the Old Testament, but positively ordained 
and required it. And in the New Testament 
he not only permitted it, but so spoke and 
acted with regard to children, and so moved 
his inspired servants to act and speak on the 
subject, as inevitably to lead the mind of 
the christian world to believe that, so far 
from abridging the former immunities of 
children, their positioa and rights under the 
gospel are vastly elevated and enlarged. 
And what God commanded in tite Old 
Testament, and by word and deed sanc- 
tioned IN THE New, cannot be a sin. 



35S 

f Go then, christian parent, and with a fer- 
vent and confiding heart offer your children 
in solemn consecration to Him who made 
them, in the holy ordinance which he him- 
self has appointed. Go let them be marked 
by Christ's commissioned ambassador as 
members beloved of the Saviour's fold, for 
he hath said, " Of such is the kingdom of 
heaven,^' Give them to your blessed Lord 
in the sacrament of his love and mercy, for 
he hath promised, *^ Whosoever shall give to 
drink unto one of these little ones a cup of 
cold water only, in the name of a disciple^ 
verily shall in no wise lose his reivard,'^ 
Bring them, and in the name of Jesus we 
will receive them into the bosom of the 
Church, which is his body; for he hath de- 
clared, " Whoso shall receive ojne such 



356 



CHAPTER XlXa 

Terms of communion-^Bapdst inconsistencies 
^^Tesiimony of Robert Hall — Baptist in'^ 
tolerance-^ Their untvarranied magisterial 
arrogance--' Conclusion, 

The reader will bear with a ^ev/ para» 
graphs we desire to submit on Dr. Fuller's 
*' Terms of Communion j'^ and we have done. 

And here let it be understood and n^sarked 
down for continual reference^ that Dr. Pulp- 
ier holds and teaches, and that it is held and 
taught by all those Baptists with whom he 
operates, that no man, and no woman^ though 
pious as the apostle John or the Virgin Mary^ 
has any right or claim whatever to the com'- 
munion of the Lord^s Supper ^ without first 
being totally immersed in tvater. He says he 
admits and rejoices to know, *Hhat in Pedo-. 
baptist (that is our) churches there are some 
of the noblest lights and ornaments of Chris, 
tianity 3" (p. 238 ;) but turns them all off in 



357 

excommunication, saying, ^^We cannot admit 
ihem, however much we may love themj 
to do this toould le to declare such persons 
qualified for membership in our (Baptist) 
churches /" (p. 237.) Is it not amazing that 
intelligent christian men should be guilty of 
such glaring inconsistency, such outrages of 
the plainest charity, such insults- to common 
sense ? " The noblest lights and ornaments 
of Christianity " not qualified for member- 
-ship in Baptist churches ! and therefore to 
he excommunicated ! ! What do these men 
mean ? Are Baptist churches composed of 
angels? Alas! for angelic excellency, if 
certain Baptists of our acquaintance are to 
be taken as specimens of it. And yet Dr. 
Fuller talks as if Baptists were " more than 
angels," to whom " the noblest lights and 
ornaments of Christianity " are nothing but 
vile dogs, to be ignominiously kicked out 
from God's table ! 

And with all he has the effrontery to tell 
us that this involves no breach of charity^ 
no want of " the highest and noblest fellow- 
ship," and no entrenchment upon the freest 
3i 



358 

operations of the fondest affection ! (p. 239.) 
Tlie distinguished Robert Hall, who was 
himself a Baptist, says, ^^ Were the children 
of the same parent, in consequence of the 
different construction Ihey put on a disputed 
clause in their father's will, to refuse to eat 
at the same table or to drink out of the 
same cup. it would he ridiculous for them to 
pretend that their attachment to each other 
remained undiminished ; nor is it Jess so 
for Christians to assert that their withdraw- 
ing from communion with their brethren 
is no interruption to their mutual harmony 
and affection. It is a serious and awful 
interruption^ and will ever be considered in 
that light." '^It is to inflict a wound on 
the very heart of charity ; and if it is not 
being guilty of heating our fellow servant, 
we must despair of ascertaining the mean- 
ing of terms." *'It is equally repugnant to 
reason and offensive to charity" — ^' It is 
the very essence of scJiis?n,^^ — Hall's Works, 
vol. 1, p. 323, 331, 333. 

Dr. Fuller agrees that the Lord's Supper 
is a social ordinance. Among other offices it 



359 

is designed to serve as a solemn naode of 
christian recognition, by which we show 
that we are "one hody'^^ as we partake of 
*' one bread." ll is God's own sacrament 
of christian fellowship; and to say that to 
disown us there is no disownment of our 
Christianity, and no breach of brotherly af- 
fection, is to try to persuade us that black is 
white or that bitter is sweet. Nay, they 
that do it, says Robert Hall, to be consistent 
with themselves, must impute to us a degree 
of delinquency equal to that which attaches 
to the most flagrant breaches of morality, 
and deem us equally guilty in the sight of 
God with those unjust persons, idolaters, 
revelers and extortioners, who are declared 
incapable of the kingdom of heaven. For 
if the guilt imputed in this instance is ac- 
knowledged to be of a totally different order 
from that which belongs to the openly vicious 
and profane, how come we to be included in 
the same sentence ? and where is the equity 
of animadverting upon unequal faults with 
equal severity? — VoL 1, j9. 338. 

We therefore hold the Baptist world to it, 



360 

that to disown us in the Lord's Supper is to 
disown us altogether. There is no alterna- 
tive. He that is not fit for this connmunioa 
is not fit for any other communion of a 
christian kind. He that is not fit to eat and 
drink in memory of the Saviour, according 
to that Saviour's command, is not fit to die 
or prepared for the judgment. The terms 
of communion on earth cannot be stricter 
than the terms of communion in heaven. 
If we are not qualified to sit down with 
Dr. Fuller and his Baptist friends in Bal- 
timore, we are not qualified to sit down 
with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the king- 
dom of God. If Baptists have the right, 
and are in duty bound to exclude us from 
the Lord's Supper, it must be a divine right 
and a command of God himself; and if such 
are God's commands as to exclude Luther, 
Melancthon, Howe, Leighton, Brainerd, and 
others like them, from the earthly commu- 
nion, it is utter folly to suppose God «5 
inconsistent with himself as to receive these 
men to the sublimer communion in his own 
high abode. Dr. Fuller says that he cannot 



361 

admit such men to the holy Supper, because 
this would be to pronounce them qualified 
for membership in our churches. His lan- 
guage of course implies that they are not 
members of the church, and that they are 
unfit to be recognized as members. But to 
attack their qualification for membership in 
the church militant, is at once to impugn 
their hopes of admission into the church 
triumphant; or else to assume the absurd 
position that men may be in all respects 
worthy to ** walk with Christ in white" il- 
lustrious among his ransomed saints, and 
yet not worthy to sit down and partake of 
his earthly sacraments ! " Transuhstaniior 
tiouj'^^ says Robert Hall, "presents nothing 
more revolting to the dictates of common 
sense ;^'^ vol. 1, p. 499. 

Dr. Fuller boasts that Baptists in all 
ages *' have asserted the glorious right of 
liberty of conscience for every man, and 
have sought only to persuade men to cast 
off spiritual tyranny, whether of slate, or 
creed, or church, or priest." We tell him 
that Baptists of his sort in all ages have 
31* 



362 

been the advocates of proscription and the 
asserters of intolerance hardly less arrogant 
than that which makes Popery the loathing 
of the earth. He may call this wholesale 
slander, base and unmitigated. But hear 
the testimony of a man of God, one of his 
mon brethren^ except " in sectarianism and 
bigotry." <* I am fully persuaded," says 
Robert Hall, "that few of our brethren have 
duly reflected on the strong resemblance 
which subsists between the pretensions of 
the Church of Rome and the principles im- 
plied in strict communion ; both equally 
INTOLERANT ; the ouc armed with pains and 
penalties, the other, I trust, disdaining such 
aid ; the one the intolerance of power, the 
other of weakness. ^'^ " The Romish Church,'' 
says he, <' pretends to an absolute infallibil- 
ity; not, however, in such a sense as implies 
an authority to introduce new doctrine, but 
merely in the proposal of apostolic traditions 
and in the interpretation of Scripture. While 
she admits the Scripture to be the original 
rule of faith, she requires, under pain of 
excommunication, that the sense she puts on 



363 

its words should be received with the same 
submission with the inspired volume. In 
what respects^ let me ask, is the conduct of 
the strict Baptists different f . • All that 
infallibility which the Church of Rome pre- 
tends to is the right of placing her interpre- 
tation of Scripture on a level with the word 
©f God. She professes to promulgate no 
new revelation, but solely to render her 
sense of it imperative and binding. And if 
we presume to treat our fellow Christians, 
merely because ihey differ from us in their 
construction of a positive precept, as unwor- 
thy of being recognized as Christ's disciples 
and disqualified for the communion of saints, 

WE DEFY ALL THE POWERS OF DISCRIMINATION 
TO ASCERTAIN THE DIFFERENCE OF THE TWO 
CASES, OR TO ASSIGN A REASON WHY WE MUST 
ASCRIBE THE CLAIM OF INFALLIBILITY TO ONE 
AND NOT TO THE OTHER." 

The same author says further, " Why is 
the act of debarring every other denomina- 
tion from admission (to the Supper) not a 
punishment? Solely because Baptist socie- 
ties are too few and too insignificant to 



364 

enable thein to realize the effects of their 
system in its full extent. Their principle 
involves an absolute interdict of church 
privileges to the members of every other com-' 
mujiity ; but being an inconsiderable minori- 
ty, there are not wanting numerous and 
respectable societies who stand ready to 
give a welcome reception to the outcasts and 
to succor the exiles. That their rejection 
is not followed by its natural consequence, 
a total privation of the communion of saints, 
is not to be ascribed in the smallest degree 
to the liberality or forbearance of strict 
Baptists, hut solely to their imhecility. The 
celebration of the Eucharist they consider 
as null and void when attended to by a Pe- 
dobaptist; his approach to the table is abso- 
lutely prohibited within the sphere of their 
jurisdiction ; and should their principles 
ever obtain a general prevalence, the com- 
memoration of the love of a crucified Saviour 
would become impracticable^ except to per^ 
sons of their oirni persuasion . Instanceshave 
often occurred where the illiberal practice 
against which we are contending has been 



365 

felt to he a punishment of no ordinary sever 
ity ; where eminently holy men have been 
so situated that the only opportunity they 
possessed of celebrating the passion of the 
Redeemer has been withheld, and they have 
been compelled most reluctantly to forego 
one of the most exalted privileges of the 
church ; nor has it ever been known that 
compassion for the peculiar hardships of the 
case was suffered to suspend the unrelenting 
severity of the sentence. Let me ask the ad. 
vocates for the exclusive system, whether 
they would be moved for a moment to extend 
their indulgence to a solitary individual who 
differed with them on the subject of baptism, 
although he was so circumstanced as to 
render a union with other classes of Chris- 
tians impossible ?" HalVs Works^ vol, 1, pp. 
358, 450, 475. And yet this unrelenting 
proscription of men acknowledged to be 
saints of God is to be called ''asserting the 
glorious right of liberty of conscience /" — 
''opposition to all spiritual tyranny ! /" Alas ! 
alas ! for these boasted apostles of freedom 
of conscience! 



366 

Robert Hall says, "The advocates of 
strict communion are not engaged in pre- 
serving their own liberty, but in an attack 
on the liberty of others ; their object is not to 
preserve the worship in which they join pure 
from contamination, hut to sit in judgbient 

ON THE CONSCIENCES OF THEIR BRETHREN and 

to deny them the privileges of the visible church 

ON ACCOUNT OF A DIFFERENCE OF OPINION, 

ivhich is neither imposed on themselves nor 
deemed fundamental. They propose to build 
a church upon the principle of an absolute 
exclusion of a multitude of societies, which 
they must either acknowledge to be true 
churches, or be convicted of the greatest 
absurdity ; while for conduct so monstrous 
and unnatural they are precluded from the 
plea of necessity, because no attempt is 
made by Pedohaptists to modify their wor- 
ship or to control the most enlarged exercise 
of private judgment." "It is not a defen- 
sive, but an ojfensive measure ; it is not an 
assertion of christian liberty by resisting en- 
croachment, IT IS ITSELF A VIOLENT EN- 
CROACHMENT ON THE FREEDOBI OF OTHERS ^ 



367 

an effort to enforce a conformity to B a 2^ fist 
views ;^'^ Hall, vol. I, p. 8:U, 335. These 
are not our words. Ii is the language of 
one of the niost holy, observant, eloquent 
and conscientious men the Baptist societies 
have ever produced. And if it does not 
fasten down on Dr. Fuller, and all who 
think with him, the charge of intolerant, and 
even persecuting arrogance, it is useless to 
rely upon the powers of reason and common 
sense to apprehend truth. 

As Protestants, we are accustomed to de- 
mand of Romanists whence they derive the 
right to decide authoritatively against those 
who conscientiously differ from ihem. And 
in the same manner we ask our Baptist 
friends where they get the Vv^arrant to draw 
distinctions between God's saints, and to en- 
force their particular views of baptism with 
ecclesiastical penalties ? They pretend to 
agree that we are Christians. Mr. Carson 
says, *' I gladly admit that many who differ 
from me with respect to baptism are among 
the excellent of ike earth?^ Dr. Fuller takes 
up the same, '^ I rejoice to know that in Pe- 



368 

dobaptist churches there are some of the 
nollest lights and ornaments of Christianity,'^'^ 
And Baptists generally profess to have no 
difficulty in classing many Pedobaptists 
among the most eminent of the sons of God, 
What right then have they to reject those 
whom God has adopted ? Whence have 
they authority to prefer the weakest, shab- 
biest and most inconsistent member of Dr. 
Fuller's congregation to Brainerd, Dod- 
drige, Baxter and Arndt ; and to say to him, 
Con)e and partake of the feast Jesus has 
provided for his disciples, whilst they turn 
away those whose lives exhibit the most va- 
ried and elevated forms of moral grandeur, 
missionary zeal, and even martyr constan- 
cy ? This is exercising a legislative power 
so high and awful that he who assumes it, 
in order to justify such conduct, ^^ ought,'^ 
says Robert Hall, *' to exhibit his creden- 
tials with a force and splendor of evidence 
equal at least to those which attested the 
divine legation of Moses and the prophets,'^ 
or else be subject to the scorn and condem- 
nation of all right thinking people, as an 



369 

usurper seeking to "lord it over God's her- 
itage.'' For, " by repelling and discounten- 
ancing those whom God accepts, to dispute 
the validity of his seal, and to subject to our 
miserable scrutiny pretensions that have 
passed the ordeal and, received the sanction 
of Flinn who understandeth the hearts, we 
should have just reason to trenable for the 
consequences ; and with all our esteena for 
the piety of many strict Baptists, we con- 
ceive it no injury or insult to put up the 
prayer of our Lord for them — Father^ for- 
give them^ for they know not what they do !^^ 
Hall, vol. 1, p. 495. 

No wonder then that this was once offen- 
sive to the conscience and heart of Dr. 
Fuller himself, when yet his first love was 
unsullied. No wonder that in the youthful 
tenderness of his Christian experience he 
was "strongly opposed to this practice, and 
verily thought when he united with the 
Baptists that he ought to do many things 
against it, which he also did;" (p. 219.) It 
is totally at war with all the generous im- 
pulses which the Spirit of God plants in the 
32 



370 

bosom of the true convert. No christian 
man who has his heart in the right place 
can adopt it without violence to his own bet- 
ter feelings. Dr. Fuller even now, though 
''sorry to find such a man as Baptist 'Nod 
advocating open commimion^'^^ declares that if 
he were at liberty to give vent to the feel- 
ings of his heart, he would joyfully break 
down the fence and invite all. Why not 
then cherish and follow these holy impulses? 
Why thus grieve and mortify the Spirit for 
the sake of the interests of a sect, or the 
support of a dogma which we have shown to 
be so unfounded and so dangerous ? God 
certainly has net written in his '' living 
epistles" what he contradicts in his Word. 
And if, at the expense of all their better 
impulses, under the risk of grieving the 
Holy Spirit, and with a magisterial arro- 
gance akin to Popery itself, Baptists still 
persist in disallowing to us the right to eat 
and drink as Christ commanded, in rnemory 
of him, let them not think hard of it when 
we meet them as we would meet any other 
raiiers at our faith or assailants of our hope. 



371 

We cannot be at peace with those who as- 
sume an attitude so lordly and would stab 
us in a place so vital. To call us saints of 
God, and yet to assume authority to exclude 
us from the communion table, is a thing 
which outward kisses and professions of fra- 
ternity will not atone for. In point of jTac^, 
Baptist societies are too imbecile to make 
their principles effectually inconvenient to us. 
It is only in point of' principle that we speak 
of their conduct as offensive and reprehensi- 
ble. We can eat the Lord's Supper without 
seeking it from them. But to call us sons^ 
whilst treating us as aliens^ and to pro- 
nounce us saints, whilst rejecting us as 
pagans, we will hold to be unchri«^tian, in- 
ccfnsistent and repugnant to common sense ; 
and we will not be kept by honeyed ver- 
bal caresses, from denouncing it as God 
and reason require that it should be de- 
nounced. ''To disown those whom Christ 
acknowledges," says Mr. Carson, " is anti. 
christian disobedience to Clmst,^^ '' To 
set at naught the weakest of Christ's little 
ones," says he, " I call not illiheral^ but 



372 

unchristian y"^^ (p. 5.) We hold the arbitrary 
exclusion of us from the communion as a 
disowning of us, and a setting of us at naught. 
No ingenuity on earth can reduce it to any 
thing less. Hall, and Carson, and Noel, 
and all the best and most distinguished Bap- 
tists in Europe, have seen this, and felt it, 
and acknowledged it. We see it, and know 
it, and feel it, as every candid Christian 
must. And if Baptists here, to their excom- 
munication of us will continue to add a mock- 
ery of our common sense, by urging them- 
selves upon our christian regard by telling 
us what a tender christian affection they 
bear towards us ! let them not complain if 
we hold them to be either blind fanatics 
deceiving themselves, or sectarian hypocrites 
seeking to impose on our credulity. 

We know that our Baptist friends will 
pronounce such sentiments, as they have 
already pronounced them, unchristianly se- 
vere. But they are not any more severe or 
unchristian, their oion men being judges^ 
than the sentence of excommunication which 
they hold with relentless rigor over hosts of 



373 

acknowledged saints of God. We regret to 
be driven to make such comments upon the 
conduct and opinions of any '^ who profess 
and call themselves Christians/' We would 
fain take them by the hand and walk with 
them upon the highway of a common Chris- 
tianity. We would cheerfully concede to 
them the utmost freedom of conscience and 
liberty to administer their baptisms in any 
mode they may see fit, and still esteem them 
entitled to our christian regard. But when 
they claim infallibility for their interpreta- 
tion of God's Word, as they do by seeking 
to enforce that interpretation by the pains of 
excommunication, duty to God, to ourselves 
and to our children, demands of us to treat 
such pretensions in Baptists just as we treat 
similar pretensions in Papists, We cannot 
have respect to persons in things which thus 
touch the vitals of our Christianity. To tell 
us that we are flagrant sinners for baptizing 
our babes, and that we are alarmingly diso- 
bedient to a positive command of Christ be- 
cause we refuse to disown our baptism as 
profanity by coming to them to be immersed, 



374 

and *^ emphatically to repeat all this," as 
Dr. Fuller says they do, amid the solemni- 
ties of the holy Supper, by sternly refusing 
to let us participate, and then to seek to 
quiet indignation by outside palaver about 
our being saints and the noblest lights and 
ornaments of Christianity, is not simply ri- 
diculous, it is mockery, a disgrace to any 
man's profession, an outrage upon common 
sense which we cannot be expected to wink 
at, and which we will never cease to stig- 
matize as it deserves. 

In the name of God we therefore charge 
all Baptists, and all with sympathies for the 
Baptist system, as they shall give account 
in the dreadful judgment, to give to these 
things a careful and honest consideration. 
It can be no advantage to them or us to 
cheat ourselves with lies ; therefore let them 
look for the real truth, and decide before 
heaven whether they can any longer give 
their sanction and influence to inconsisten- 
cies and wrongs so utterly unfounded both 
in reason and Scripture. We live in trying 
times. The final battles between truth and 



375 

error are being fought. The powers of the 
heavens are shaking and the foundations of 
the earih are being turned up. *' The time 
is come that judgment must begin." Let 
men beware then how they tamper with the 
fundamental laws of Christ's kingdom, or 
legislate terms of communion for the benefit 
of a sect, or imitate the errors and assump- 
tions of the ** Man of Sin." Above all, let 
no man, at this eleventh hour of the world, 
presume to remove and re-arrange '*the an- 
cient land-marks," which have been stand- 
ing firm in their places for nearly a score 
of centuries. ^' Thus saith the Lord, Stand 
ye in the ways, and see, and ask for the old 
paths, where is the good way, and walk 
therein." *' Stand fast therefore in the 

LIBERTY WITH WHICH ChRIST HATH MADE US 
FREE, AND BE NOT ENTANGLED AGAIN WITH 
THE YOKE OF BONDAGE." 

The Review of Fidelis Scrutator is ended. 
May God bless it to the good of his church 
and people! The time will come when it 
will be thought strange that ever such an 
essay should have been called for. Truth 



376 

must be triumphant. The flimsy sophistry 
and the unblushing impudence by which 
men have unwittingly or otherwise sought 
to obscure it, and the tedious processes of 
reasoning by which such attempts are op- 
posed, will soon be alike forgotten amid the 
coming victories of a liberal and unstinted 
Christianity. Before the brightness of the 
Saviour's appearing all these religious con- 
troversies shall vanish. From Jerusalem 
round about to Illyricum, and from the riv- 
ers to the ends of the earth, there shall yet 
" be one fold and one Shepherd." And in 
joyful confidence we await the coming time, 
when from the dwellers in the valleys, and 
caught up by the inhabitants of the hills, and 
echoed by the islands over all the seas, shall • 
be heard the apostolic chant of christian 
unity — " One Lord, one Faith, one Bap- 
TiSBi, one God and Father of all, who is 
above all, and through all, and in all.'' 

the end. 



[April : 



STANDARD AND MISCELLANEOUS 

LUTHERAN PUBLICATIONS, 

PUBLISHED AND FOR SALE BY 

T.NEWTON KURTZ, 
Wo. 151 ^¥i:§T FMATT STKEET, 

BAI.T1MOKE!, Md, 



ENGLISH LITURGY, for the use of Evangelical 
Lutheran Churches in the United States. Bound in 
various styles. 

The German LITURG-Y (Pennsylvania Synod's edition) 
bound in various styles, can also be obtained as above, 

GENERAL SYNOD'S STANDARD EDITIONS 
ENGLISH LUTHERAN HYMN BOOK: 

48mo, - Smallest size. 

24mo, — Medium do, 

12mo, — Large do. 

8vo, bxtra large, do, for the pulpit. 

These Hymn Books are bound in various styles, some 
very beautifully, and aie sold entirely for cash. Mat gilt 
Clasps can be put on any of the styles for twenty-tive 
cents, and superior plated Clasps for fifty cents each, 
additional. 

GERMAN LUTHERAIV HYMN-BOOKS. 
EVANG. LIEDER-SAMMLUNG— General Synod's 

standard edition, 24mo, full sheep ; also, embossed 

morocco, marble edges 
DEUTCHES GESANGBUCH— Penn. Synod's edition, 

32mo, and 12mo, roan embossed. 
GEMEINSCHAFTLICHES GESANGBUCH — New 

York or Union edition^ roan embossed. 



2 

ENG. luUTII. SUx\D AY-SCHOOL HYMN-BOOK. 

With a view to the more extensive use of this Hymn- 
book in our Sunday Schools, the prices have been much 
reduced, and they are now offered at a very small ad- 
vance on the prime cost ; and as there is no reason 
why it should not be used altogetlur in our Sunday 
Schools, (for the book is as well adapted for the purpose 
as any published in the country,) we trust our Superin- 
tendents and Teachers will make an effort to introduce 
it generally. They are bound in various styles. 

GERMAN L*UTH. SUNO AY-SCHOOL. HYMIV-BOOIC. 

Authorized to be published by the Pemisyivania Synod ^ 
is now ready — 32mo, half morocco. 

ENGOSH L.UTHEIIAN CATECHISMS. 

LUrHER'S SMALLER CATECHISM— Gen. Synod's 
standard edition, 18mo, half sheep or cloth. 

LUTHER'S SHORTER CATECHISM, illustrated by 
additional Questions and Answers by J. G. Morris, 
D. D., 18mo, half sheep or cloth. 

THE SERL^L CATECHISM— Or Progressive ( Reli- 
gious) Instructor for Children, prepared with a 
special view to Infant and Sunday Schools, in three 
numbers, 24mo. Numbers ONE and TWO are now 
ready. They can be had &eparately or bound to- 
gether. 

GERMAN EUTHERAN CATECHISM, 

DR. LUTHER'S KLEINER CATECHISMUS— West 

Pennsylvania Synod's new and improved edition con- 
taining the Formula of Discipline, Augsburg Con- 
fession, &c., 18mo, half sheep. 



LUTHERAN PRAYEll BOOK— For the use of Fami- 
lies and individuals, with Introductory Remarks on 



Family Prayer, together with A Selection of 178 
Hymns, with Music or Tunes adapted to them. By B. 
Kurtz, D. D. 

<'This PRAYER BOOK has been prepared mainly 
for the English portion of the Lutheran Church, yet it 
is believed nothing will be found in it to prevent its free 
use in any Protestant Christian family. In the German 
language w^e are abundantly supplied with such helps ; 
but in English, a general and complete Prayer Book, 
adapted to daily devotion, to special occasions, and to 
every emergency, has thus far remained a desideratum, 
which it has been our aim to supply. It is therefore 
hoped that the Lutheran Church especially, will en- 
courage this enterprise.'' — Extract from the Author''s 
Preface. 

It is a large duodecimo volume, of nearly 500 pages, 
printed on large, clear type, and fine white paper, and 
bound in various styles. The following is a synopsis 
of the contents : 

Introduction — Prayer in ail its Forms. 

Morning and Evening Prayers, with Scripture (read- 
ings) Lessons for every day for six weeks. 

Prayers for Particular Days. 

Occasional Prayers and Thanksgivings. 

Prayers before and after Meals. 
. Morning and Evening Prayers for Children for one 
week. 

Occasional Prayers for Children. 

Morning and Evening Prayers for Little Children. 

WPIY ARE YOU A LUTHERAN ? or a Series of Dis- 
sertations, explanatory of the Doctrines, Govern- 
ment, Discipline, Liturgical Economy, Distinctive 
Traits, &c., of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in 
the United States. By B. Kurtz, D. D., with an 
introduction by John G. Morris, D.D. 12mo. 
" We believe that the extensive circulation and perusal 
of this publication (Why are You a Lutheran?) among 
our people, will be the means of rectifying many mis- 



4 

takes, and diffusing correct information rn regard to 
Lutheranism ; and that its general distribution will also 
tend to the prevention and removal of unfounded preju- 
dices in the case of many candid and serious persons of 
other denominations, who are willing to investigate be- 
fore they censure or condemn." 

The above is an extract from a Recommendation signed 
by many of our most eminent ministers, such as Dr. 3. 
S. Schmucker, Dr. Reynolds, Dr. Krauth, Dr. Bach- 
many Dr Morris, Dr. H. N. Pohlman, Dr. S. W. Harkey, 
the late Dr, E. Keller, Revs. P. Rizer, W. A. Passa- 
vant, J. Z. Senderling, S. R. Boyer, t\ R. Anspach, 
John Heck, A. Babb, J. C. Hope^ A. H. Lochman, &c. 
It is bound in various styles, snd sold at reduced prices. 

TREATISE ON PRAYER IN ALL ITS FORMS-^ 
Secret, Social, Ejaculatory, in Public and in the 
Family ; and the Training of Children. Th^ former 
arranged in Catechetical order, and the latter based 
on Prov, xxii, 6 — " Train up a child in the way he 
should go, and when he is old he will not depart 
from jt."— By B. Kurtz, D. D.— ISmo. cloth, with 
a portrait of the author. 
EMENTS OF POPULAR THEOLOGY — With 
special reference to the Doctrines of the Reforma- 
tion, as avowed before the Diet at Augsburg, in 
MDXXX, by S. S. Schmucker, D. D., 8vo. bheep— 
full edition. 

Do. do. do. 12mo. cloth — L«th. edition. 
Do. do. do. *' sheep or cloth — 

•Abridged and adapted to use in different denominations. 

THE AMERICAN LUTHERAN CHURCH— Histo- 
rically, Doctrinally and Practically delinea-ted in 
several occasional Discourses, by S. S. Schmucker, 
D. D,. 12mo, cJoth, and extra gilt. 

SCHMUCKER ON THE REFORMATION— 18mo. 

SCHMUCKER'S PORTRAITURE OF LUTHER- 
ANISM- l8mo., cloth. 



THE LIFE OF JOHN ARNDT— Author of the Work 
on *' True Christianity." By John G. Morris, D. 
D. 18mo., cloth, with a correct portrait of Arndt. 
This work is a biography of one of the ablest men and 
most distinguished servants of God the world ever pro- 
duced, and is now offered for the first time in the Eng- 
lish language. It should be read by every Lutheran. 
EXPOSITION OF THE GOSPELS— Lwfcg and John. 
Designed for the use of Families, Bible Classes and 
Sunday Schools. By Rev. J. G, Morris, D. D., 
and Rev. Charles A. Smith, D. D., 12mo, cloth. 
THE CHARACTER AND VALUE OF AN EVAN- 
GELICAL MINISTRY, and the Duty of the 
Church in Regard to it. By Rev. Simeon W. Har- 
key, D. D,, Professor of Theology in Illinois State 
University. 
" The writer of this work believes that the greatest 
want, as well as the greatest hope and the greatest bless- 
ing of this country and of the world, is a faithful and 
well qualified Evangelical Ministry. So deeply is he 
convinced of this, that he has solemnly consecrated the 
remainder of his life, be it worth much or little, to the 
great work of increasing the number of true ministers 
of Christ. * *' * * My object has been to (Zogooti — to stir 
up * the pure minds of ministers and people by way 6f 
remembrance, and to come to the help of my brethren 
who are bearing * the burden and heat of the day ' in the 
master's vineyard. * * * * 

" I would commend the book to the attention of all 

Christians, and especially to my beloved brethren in the 

ministry f and hope that they may find great benefit by 

circulating it freely among thepeopleof their churches." 

LECTURES ON THE EPISTLE OF PAUL THE 

APOSTLE TO THE HEBREWS— By Rev. J. A. 

Seiss, A. M. 8vo, cloth. 

This is a valuable work^ highly recommended by several 

of our Synods and most eminent Clergymen. There are 

but few left of the edition. 



LIFE OF MARTIN LUTHER— Being a comprehen- 
sive, though condensed and correct History of the 
Life and stupendous achievements of the Great 
Reformer. By Rev. R. Weiser, 12mo, cloth, — new 
edition, revised and corrected, and illustrated with 
a correct portrait of Luther and fifteen fine en- 
gravings, representing the most important events in 
Luther's life and history. 

THE LIFE OF LUTHER— With Special Reference 
to its Earlier Periods and the opening Scenes of the 
Reformation. By Barnas Sears, D. D. This is an 
three v/ood engravings, all finished in the highest 
original work; with three fine steel and twenty- 
style of the art — 12mo, cloth. 

A DEFENCE OF LUTHER AND THE REFORMA- 
TION— By John Bachman, D. D., LL. D., against 
the Charges of John Bellinger, M. D., and others ; 
to which are appended various Communications of 
other Protestant and Roman Catholic writers who 
engaged in the controversy. Large 12mo, cloth. 

MEMOIR OF REV. WALTER GUNN, late Mission- 
ary in India, from the Evan. Lutheran Church in 
the United States, by G. A. Lintner, D D., 18mo, 
cloth. 

A MANUAL OF CHRISTIAN BAPTISM, INFANT 

BAPTISM, AND THE MODE,— By Rev. Thomas 

Lape, A. M. Sixth edition, corrected and enlarged 

— 18mo. 

*' This is a brief, yet comprehensive work in favor of 

Infant Baptih^m, and presents the whole controversy, in 

so simple a form and clear a light, that all who read 

can understand it." 

DISCIPLINE, ARTICLES OF FAITH AND SY- 
NODICAL CONSTITUTION, AS ADOPTED 
BY THE EVAN. LUTH. SYNOD OF SOUTH 
CAROLINA, and adjacent States, to which is 
added a Liturgy, and some forms of Prayer for fam- 
ilies and individuals, 12mo, cloth. 



THE UNALTERED AUGSBURG CONFESSION— 

and tlie three Chief Symbols of the Christian 
Church with Historical Introductions and Critical 
and Explanatory Notes. By Christian Heinrich 
Schott, carefully translated from the German. 
12mo, cloth, 

THEOLOGICAL SKETCH BOOK, or Skeletons of 

Sermons, 2 vols. 8vo, cloth. 
HAZELIUS' CHURCH HISTORY, vol. 1, 12mo. 

A selection of the most, celebrated SERMONS of 
MARTIN LUTHER and JOHN CALVIN, never be- 
fore published in the United States, to which is prefixed 
a Biographical History of iheir lives. 12mo, cloth. 
LUTHER'S COMMENTARY ON SAINT PAUL'S 

EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS, to which is 

prefixed Tischer's Life of Luther; also, a Sketch of 

the Life of Zuingle. 8vo, sheep. 
THE CHILDREN OF THE NEW TESTAMENT, 

by Rev. T. Stork, D. D., 12aio, cloth. 
THE SEPULCHRES OF OUR DEPARTED, by Rev. 

F. R. Anspach, A. M. 12mo, cloth. 

ENGLISH LUTHERAN ALMANAC, 

Containing; valuable statistical and general informa- 
tion of the Church ; also a complete list of all the Lutheran 
ministers in the United States, with their Post Office address^ 
carefully corrected, — published annually. 

BLANK CERTIFICATES OF 

Ordination, Licensure, Confirmation, and Marriage. 

The form and style of these Certificates are entirely 
new and very neat. 



STANDARD THEOLOGICAL 

AND VALUABLE 

MISCELLANEOUS BOOKS. 



THE COMPLETE WORKS OF JAMES ARMINIUS, 
D. D., formerly Professor of Divinity in the Uni- 
versity of Leyden.. Translated from the Latin, ivith 
a sketch of the Life of the JiiUhor. 

It may not be generally known that only two of the 
three volumes of the Works of Armini'is have ever been 
published in the English language, viz : The edition 
published in 1825, by James JSichols, London — the third 
volume either never having been translated, or if it was, 
never re-published; it remains for an American trans- 
lator to render the third volume into English, and for an 
American publishing house to first offer, in the English 
tongue, the complete Works of the Great Expounder of 
the Arminian System. 

The competency of the American translator for his 
task is vouched for by those who know him best, and 
who are well and favorably known by the literary and 
religious public. 

The worts of Arminius make three handsome octavo 
volumes, of about 600 pages each, well prin'ed on fair 
type, bound in cloth. 

THE COMPREHENSIVE COMMENTARY ON 
THE BIBLE — Containing Scott's Marginal References; 
Matt. Henry's Commentary ; Practical Observa'ions of 
Rev. Thomas Scott, D. D. with extensive Explanatory, 
Critical and Philological Notes, selected from Scott, 
Doddridge, Gill, Adam Clarke, Patrick, Poole, Lowth, 
Burder, Harmer, Calmet, Stuart, Robinson, Bush, 



Rosenmueller, Bloomfield, and many other writers on 
the Scriptures. The whole designed to be a Digest and 
combination of the advantages of the best Bible Commen- 
taries, embracing all that is valuable in Henry^ Scottj 
Doddridge, Sfc, <S,t. In six volumes super royal octavo, 
bound in full, strong sheep. 

CLARKE'S COiMPLETE COMMENTARY ON THE 
OLD AND NEW TESTAMENT— 4 vols., super 
royal 8vo, in full, strong sheep. 
CLARKE'S COMMENTARY ON THE NEW TES- 
TAMENT— 2 vols., super royal 8vo, full sheep. 
PULPIT CYCLOPEDIA AND MINISTER'S COM- 
PANION, containing 360 Skeletons and Sketches 
of Sermons, and 82 Essays on various subjects, 8vo, 
cloth. 
FIVE HUNDRED SKETCHES AND SKELETONS 
OF SERMONS, suited for all occasions, 8vo, cloth. 

THE COMPLETE WORKS OF JOSEPHUS, with ex- 
planatory Notes and Observations, 8vo, sheep. 

ENCYCLOPEDIA OF RELIGIOUS KNOWLEDGE, 
Or Dictionary of the Bible ^ Theology, Religious Bi- 
ography, Ecclesiastical History, &c. Containing 
Definitions of all Religious Terms: an impartial 
account of the principal Religious Denomiiiations, 
&c. &c., designed as a complete book of reference 
on all religious subjects, and Companion to the Bi- 
ble, forming a cheap and compact Library of Reli- 
gious Knowledge — I vol. super-royal octavo, full 
sheep extra. 

NEANDER'S GENERAL HISTORY OF THE 
CHRISTIAN RELIGION AND CHURCH— 4 
vols. 8vo, cloth. 

MOSHEIM'S ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY— 4to. 
full sheep. 

WEST'S COMPLETE ANALYSIS OF THE BIBLE, 
large 8vOj full sheep. 



10 

SLMMON'S SCRIPTURAL MANUAL, alphabetically 
and systematically arranged, designed to facilitate 
the finding of Proof Texts. This is a truly valuable 
work. 

JESUS' WITNESSES, or the <' Great Salvation Exem- 
plified.'' 12mo, sheep. 

THE COMPLETE WORKS OF THOMAS DICK, 
LL. D. — Illustrated with numerous engravings, 2 
vols.. 8vo, sheep. 

PLUTARCH'S LIVES— 8vo, sheep. 

THE SPEC TATOR— By Mdisori, 8vo., sheep. 

ROLLIN'S ANCIENT HISTORY— 2 vols , 8vo, sheep. 

LIVES AND TIMES OF THE MOST DISTIN- 
GUISHED CHRISTIAN FATHERS, to the close 
of the 3d century, 8vo, sheep. 

GAILLARD'S CHURCH HISTORY— 8vo, stiff paper. 

PILGRIM'S PROGRESS, with engravings, 18mo, 
cloth. 

LOOKING-GLASS, OR INTELLECTUAL MIRROR 
— A Juvenile Book, with 64 engravings, 18mo, 
cloth. 

DODDRIDGE'S RISE AND PROGRESS OF RE- 
LIGION IN THE SOUL— 32mo, cloth. 

KEMPIS' CH[RI3TIAN'S PATTERN— 32mo, cloth. 

MASON ON SELF-KNOWLEDGE— 32mo, cloth. 

MRS. ROWE'S DEVOTIONAL EXERCISES OF 
THE HEART— 32mo, cloth. 

YOUNG AMERICAN, or Book of Government and 
Law, by Peter Parley, 12mo, half morocco. 



11 

To Superintendents and Teachers of 

SUNDAY SCHOOLS. 

Tlie undersigned respectfully announces that 
he has been appointed Agent for the sale of the 
Publications of the 

MiSSACIIUSETTS S.IBBATH SCHOOL SOCIETY, 

,^nd is prepared to furnish them at loivest catalogue prices. 
These publications are entirely different from those 
published by any other S. S. Society, and are now so 
well and favorably known throughout the country, that 
no special reconnmendation is deemed necessary. 

The whole number of bound volumes of this Society 
is about 650, varying in price from 7 cents to jjl. They 
publish 20 different volumes of Scripture Q,uestion Books, 
for Sabbath Schools, and a large number of Catechisms 
for Infant Schools. 

The Society has put up six selected Libraries, viz : 
Little Boy^s and GirVs Library — 25 vols, for $ 3 00 
The Infant's Library — 40 vols. ** 5 00 

The Sabbath School Library— 100 vols. " 10 00 

The Family Library — 25 vols. ** ]0 00 

The Childten's Library— 100 vols. " 18 00 

The Youth's Library— \^0yo\^. ** 30 00 

The prices of these Sabbath School publications are 
fully as low if not lower than any other similar books 
published in the country, and are regarded as unexcep- 
tionable on the score of sectarianism. 

A full assortment will always be kept on hand and for 
sale by the undersigned — terms cash. 

P. S. — Full descriptive Catalogues, with the price an- 
nexed to each book, will be furnished gratis, when ap- 
plied for. 

T. NEWTON KUETZ, 

No. 151 Pratf street, Baltimore, Md. 



Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process. 
Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
Treatment Date: Sept. 2005 

PreservationTechnologies 

A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION 

1 1 1 Thomson Park Drive 
Cranberry Township, PA 16066 
(724)779-2111 



? 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 




014 665 015 6 



